Jett v. Wooten, [Ms. 1110731, Sept. 14, 2012] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2012). Ms. Jett hired
attorney James Wooten to file two personal injury actions. He sent demand
letters to both defendants, but they denied liability. According to Wooten,
he informed Jett that he had decided not to file the claims because of
the weakness of the liability evidence. Jett, however, stated that Wooten
had assured her: "Oh, I filed things; don't worry about it; everything
is going to be fine; you know me, you know me; I filed." Approximately
a year after the statute of limitations had run on both claims, Jett was
in the courthouse on another matter and discovered that neither case had
been filed. She filed her action nineteen months later. Wooten argued
that, because her injury accrued when the statute of limitations expired
on the underlying claims, she had two years from that date to file a legal
services liability claim, and that any assurances he might have made to
her did not trigger the tolling provision of ¤ 6-2-3, because she
still had a year left to file the legal services liability claim when
she allegedly discovered his fraud. The Court disagreed, holding that
she had two years from the date of discovery pursuant to ¤ 6-2-3,
even though at that time there was still a year left on the LSLA statute
of limitations.
RELATED DOCUMENTS