## Facts

- Corva was injured as a passenger in an automobile accident involving a vehicle owned by Donald Sabia.
- Sabia was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by United Services Automobile Association (USAA).
- USAA retained Dahle Lassonde & Company, Inc. to adjust the claim and retained Jack Hall as counsel in settlement negotiations.
- During negotiations, USAA’s agents allegedly represented to Corva’s attorneys, Mangiatordi & Corpina (M & C), that Sabia’s policy limit was $15,000 and that this was the full available coverage.
- Corva settled her personal-injury claim for $15,000 based on that representation.
- Corva later alleged the policy limits were higher and sued USAA, Dahle, and Hall for fraudulent misrepresentation and related claims arising from the settlement.
- USAA, Dahle, and Hall asserted cross-claims against M & C seeking contribution, alleging M & C negligently failed to investigate the true policy limits and thereby contributed to Corva’s loss.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants accused of misrepresenting policy limits in settlement negotiations may assert contribution claims against plaintiff’s attorneys based on the attorneys’ alleged negligence in failing to verify the limits.
2. Whether an attorney’s alleged malpractice can be treated as a concurrent cause of the same economic loss as the alleged misrepresentation, permitting apportionment under New York contribution law.
3. Whether the cross-claims sufficiently pleaded duty, breach, and causal contribution to survive dismissal.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the order dismissing the cross-claims against M & C.
- The court held the cross-claims for contribution were legally sufficient and reinstated them for further proceedings.
- The court reasoned that both the alleged misrepresentation and the alleged attorney negligence could be found to have contributed to a single injury: an unfavorable settlement.
- The court rejected the view that differences in the character or seriousness of wrongdoing (fraud versus negligence) categorically bar contribution when the same loss is alleged.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR article 14, contribution is available among parties subject to liability for the same injury, even when theories of liability and degrees of fault differ.
- Contribution may be sought where multiple actors’ conduct is alleged to be a substantial contributing cause of a single, indivisible loss.
- A plaintiff’s potential ability to prove justifiable reliance on a misrepresentation does not foreclose a finding that the plaintiff’s counsel was also negligent in failing to investigate material facts.
- At the pleading stage, a contribution claim is sufficient where it alleges the attorney’s duty to the client, a breach of reasonable care, and that the breach contributed to the complained-of loss.

## Conclusion

The court allowed defendants accused of understating policy limits to pursue contribution from the plaintiff’s attorneys because the pleadings supported a theory that attorney negligence and defendants’ misrepresentation jointly contributed to the same settlement-related economic loss.


Corva v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 108 A.D.2d 631, 485 N.Y.S.2d 264 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1985)