In Kee v. Howard L. Nations, et al., USDC ND MS., No. 4:20-cv-00127 (August 17, 2022), the Northern District Court of Mississippi found that a woman who had had an implanted blood clot filter can proceed with claims against her law firm for not filing suit on her behalf for the damages caused by the device before the statute of limitations ran out. The retainer contract she signed was held to be too ambiguous under Texas law (which the contract stated governed) to determine what rights were guaranteed and will be sent to a jury trial.
This decision underscores the importance of having well written client retention letters. Here, the plaintiff claimed that the retention letter covered all claims resulting from implantation of the IVC filter, including medical malpractice following its insertion, and the defendant law firm contended that the language in question limited the representation to only product liability claims. Applying Texas law on cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court found the language in question to be ambiguous because it could reasonably be subject to two different interpretations.
“On the one hand, the Contract does state that The Firm will prosecute all claims against all necessary defendants arising out of injuries after implantation of the filter. The injuries Kee sustained certainly arose after implantation of the filter, and there were no specific caveats listed in the Contract. On the other hand, the Court finds the Contract can also reasonably be read in such a manner that it does not include a medical malpractice claim. The “after implantation of IVC filter” language could reasonably be read to limit the injuries to those related to the damage caused by such implantation – not the related follow up medical treatment.”
The Court thus denied both summary judgment motions because of the ambiguity and set the matter for trial.