Plaintiff artist made paintings, “Infamous Golf Holes,” which he submitted to GM’s Cadillac division for possible use in advertising about ten years ago. Cadillac took a pass but then, plaintiff believes, misappropriated his images or ideas in Cadillac advertising. (Aside: plaintiff appears to have made more than $3 million with his golf paintings over the years.)
Plaintiff went to a lawyer and, plaintiff alleges, the lawyer negligently failed to bring suit against Cadillac within the applicable statute of limitations period.
Plaintiff brought suit against the lawyer, entered into a Miller-Shugart settlement with the lawyer, and then brought an insurance coverage claim against the malpractice insurer.
The malpractice insurer denied coverage based on the lawyer’s failure to disclose the potential claim when he applied for renewal of his policy. On this basis, the district court granted summary judgment and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed.