Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an insurer can be liable “for the acts or omissions of an attorney hired to represent an insured when those acts or omissions were, at least in part, directed, commanded, or knowingly authorized by the insurer”
• stating that the tort of intentional interference with business relationships requires “damages resulting from the tortious interference”
• noting that the acts of corporate representatives, “if performed within their representative, agency, or employment capacities on behalf of the corporation, are attributed to the corporation”
• noting that because a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof, “matters outside the pleadings should not be considered in deciding whether to grant the motion”
• finding insurer may be vicariously liable for attorney‟s conduct where insurer controls details of attorney‟s performance, dictates strategy or tactics, or directs attorney‟s conduct of litigation
• involving, inter alia, existing relationship between plaintiff — a medical clinic for indigent and uninsured personal injury victims — and attorneys who referred patients to the clinic

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).