Examiner was an independent contractor. What's in play is that the attorney's malpractice carrier is attempting to subrogate onto the examiner's E&O. The examiner's E&O carrier is disallowing the claim stating that the attorney must not have actually read the abstract. I think, though not actually sure about this, that the examiner is being sued by the attorney to cover the cost of the malpractice deductible (at minimum).
to post a reply:
login - or -
register