## Facts

- Josephine Lewis resided in a nursing home, was hospitalized in July 1998 for amputation, developed a severe decubitus ulcer, and died in August 1998 from a bloodstream infection.
- Lewis’s family consulted a Tennessee lawyer who retained Mississippi counsel (Leonard B. Melvin, Jr.) to prosecute a wrongful-death claim.
- Medical experts advised counsel that a regional medical center (NMRMC) was negligent and that the nursing home was not.
- In August 2000, counsel filed a wrongful-death complaint against the nursing home entity and NMRMC and caused summonses to issue.
- A registered-agent service returned the summons for NMRMC as defective and indicated it could not accept service as issued.
- NMRMC was never properly served, and no correction was shown in the record.
- In November 2001, the family terminated Melvin’s representation; new counsel later entered the case.
- By the time new counsel realized NMRMC had never been served, the limitations period for claims against NMRMC had expired, leaving no viable case consistent with the experts’ opinions.
- Bennett asserted she first learned of the service failure and its consequences in 2005 after new counsel obtained and reviewed the file.
- In October 2007, Bennett filed a legal-malpractice action alleging counsel’s failure to perfect service on NMRMC and failure to inform her caused loss of the wrongful-death claim.
- The trial court granted Melvin summary judgment, holding the three-year limitations period began no later than 2001 (end of representation) or 2002 (settlement discussions), and certified a final judgment as to Melvin.

## Issues

1. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to when Bennett knew or, with reasonable diligence, should have known of the alleged malpractice for purposes of Mississippi’s three-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether the end of the attorney-client relationship or later case activity, without clear disclosure of the service failure, started the limitations period as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the summary judgment for Melvin and remanded.
- The court held Bennett produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on when she discovered or reasonably should have discovered the alleged malpractice.
- The court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the limitations period necessarily began in 2001 or 2002.

## Legal Principles

- Under Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49, a legal-malpractice claim accrues when the plaintiff learns of the negligence or, with reasonable diligence, should have learned of it.
- When the date of discovery is disputed and supported by competing inferences, accrual is a fact question generally not suitable for summary judgment.
- A lay client may rely on counsel’s superior legal knowledge and may not reasonably detect procedural malpractice (such as failure of service) absent disclosure.
- Termination of representation, standing alone, does not automatically place a client on notice of malpractice.

## Conclusion

Because evidence supported an inference that Bennett first learned of the unserved defendant and the resulting loss of claims in 2005, the limitations question turned on disputed facts, making summary judgment improper; the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Bennett v. Hill-Boren, P.C., 52 So. 3d 364 (Miss. 2011)