Young v. Lippl

Young sued Lippl and claimed that Lippl’s legal malpractice caused her to lose an arbitration. A jury returned a verdict for Young. In the cross-appeal of Young v. Lippl, the parties appealed from different aspects of the judgment. The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed but remanded for the limited purpose of calculating and awarding post-judgment interest. All three of Lippl’s issues on appeal challenged the trial court’s denial of his request for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court ruled that each claim was meritless. Further, the Court concurred with the trial court’s ruling that the one-satisfaction rule required the verdict to be reduced by the amount Young had already recovered in a different but associated suit. Lastly, the Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Young never requested that the trial court award her post-judgment interest.

YOUNG-1-1