United States Third Circuit

In a malpractice case accusing an accounting firm of failing to warn an insurer that it was near insolvency, leading to the insurer's ultimate failure, jury verdict for plaintiff-receiver is affirmed where: 1) defendant was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on its theory that "deepening insolvency" cannot be used as a measure of damages for a malpractice action; 2) defendant was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law or additional jury instructions on the issue of proximate cause; 3) defendant was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law based on the in pari delicto doctrine; 4) defendant was not prejudiced by the denial of its motion for a trial separate from its co-defendant; 5) the damages awarded were not excessive; 6) prejudgment interest was correctly calculated; and 7) the correct state law on joint and several liability was applied.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/09/2008
• Published 09/09/2008

Judges

• Before:  SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Evan R. Chesler, Esq. [Argued], Antony L. Ryan, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, NY, Jay K. Wright, Esq., Andrew T. Karron, Matthew A. Eisenstein, Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, for Appellant., Kevin McNulty, Esq., Gibbons, Newark, NJ, Amicus Curiae for the Court.


• For Appellees:
  
• Richard B. Whitney, Esq. [Argued], Tracy K. Stratford, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Robert J. Stickles, Esq., Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, Newark, NJ, Fordham E. Huffman, Esq., Jones Day, Columbus, OH, for Appellee.