CUFFIE v. ARMSTRONG (2022)

In Cuffie v. Armstrong, 355 Ga. App. 471, 475 (1), 843 S.E.2d 599 (2020), we held that Armstrong's professional malpractice claim against the Cuffie Law Firm, arising from an attorney's failure to protect an underinsured motorist claim, was barred by the statute of limitation. Armstrong filed a petition for certiorari, which our Supreme Court granted. Armstrong v. Cuffie, 311 Ga. 791, 860 S.E.2d 504 (2021). On review, our Supreme Court held that the malpractice claim accrued, and the limitation period began to run, as of the last day counsel could lawfully effect service on the underinsured motorist carrier. Id. at 795-796, 860 S.E.2d 504 (2). The Court thus concluded that Armstrong's claim was not time-barred, and it reversed our opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. at 797, 860 S.E.2d 504 (2).

We now adopt the Supreme Court's opinion as our own. We therefore affirm the trial court's denial of the Cuffie Law Firm's motion for reconsideration of its denial of the motion to dismiss, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.¹

Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   When the Supreme Court “considers only a portion of a Court of Appeals’ opinion and reverses, it is for the Court of Appeals to determine on remand whether the portions of its earlier opinion that were not considered by [the Supreme Court] are consistent with [its] ruling.” Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563 (1), 554 S.E.2d 465 (2001); see also Agnes Scott College v. Hartley, 330 Ga. App. 575, 576 (2), 768 S.E.2d 767 (2015). Here, the other divisions in our prior opinion are consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling, and therefore remain binding precedent. Agnes Scott College, 330 Ga. App. at 576 (2), 768 S.E.2d 767.

Markle, Judge.

Reese and Pinson, JJ., concur.