Settlement Amount:
$1.8 million settlement one month before trial.

Case Name:
JYL A. LENETT v. SAMUEL E. SPITAL, KARL BLOOMFIELD,
WALTER PINKERTON

Case Number:
San Diego Superior Court, San Diego, No. 640 895

Plaintiff:
Jyl A. Lenett

Defendants:
Samuel E. Spital, Karl Bloomfield, Walter Pinkerton

Facts and Background:
In the underlying case, Plaintiff was injured on February 1, 1989
while attempting to light a friend’s cigarette with a BIC cigarette
lighter. A flame shot out and burned Plaintiff’s right eye.

Within weeks of the injury, Plaintiff retained Defendant Samuel
E. Spital, a Personal Injury attorney who advertised extensively
in the San Diego area, to represent her in a product liability
suit against BIC Pen Corporation, the manufacturer of the
lighter. Defendant attorneys Pinkerton and Bloomfield both worked
in Spital’s office. Bloomfield wrote the brief to argue for
tolling the statue of limitations (see below), while Pinkerton
argued the same before the court.

Plaintiff alleged that she became aware of Spital through his
advertisements and relied on the representations made in the
advertisements. These included that Spital was a former assistant
attorney general who "is tough" and who "knows the law."
Plaintiff intended Spital to personally handle her lawsuit and
believed such a representation was made in his advertisements
which stated, among other things, to "let Sam do it." Although
Plaintiff alleges she was reassured personally by Spital
throughout the year that the case was progressing according to
plan, no complaint was filed until February 2, 1990, missing the
one year statute of limitations by a day.

BIC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in Federal Court based on
the statute of limitations. Spital’s firm asked the Court to toll
the statute of limitations; Defendant asked the Court to
determine that a year could be 366 days long and that 1989 was a
leap year, citing Gonzales v. County of LA (1988), 199 C.A. 3d
601, 605. The Spital firm also filed written pleadings and
presented oral argument to the Chief Judge of the Federal Court
requesting that the statute of limitations be tolled because the
injuries Plaintiff suffered in the accident affected her vision,
caused intense pain and generated extreme fear that she would
suffer a permanent vision impairment, which combined to make her
incompetent to attend to her personal affairs, thus tolling the
statute for the period of her incompetency (CCP 352). There was
no doctor’s declaration filed or other evidence to support this
assertion. U.S. District Chief Judge Judith N. Keep granted BIC’s
Motion for Summary Judgment on the statute of limitations, and
held, (1) that there are 365 days in a year, and (2) that there
was no evidence to substantiate the factual assertion and legal
argument that Ms. Lenett was insane the day of the accident.

Plaintiff’s Contentions:
That Defendants committed legal malpractice and fraud; that they
were guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligent misrepresentation, libel and slander. Plaintiff
contended that Defendant was negligent in handling virtually
every aspect of her case, including the failure to file the
complaint until after the statute of limitations has expired;
that Defendant committed fraud/misrepresentation in his
advertising, misrepresenting that he would personally handle the
case and misrepresenting his experience in Personal Injury, in
which Plaintiff relied. In his deposition, Spital acknowledges
that he has only tried one civil lawsuit before a jury, as
co-counsel, and had never tried a product-liability suit.

Plaintiff also alleged that, with regard to his experience as an
assistant attorney general, that Spital did no work which
involved Personal Injury litigation, but was involved in Board of
Medical Quality Assurance administrative hearings. Plaintiff
alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel and
slander, due to the legal argument in the underlying case that
she was "incompetent" on the day of her injury, despite
Plaintiff’s specific instructions that these false contentions not
be offered in support of any opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff contended that she was informed about the
insanity defense only one week before the documents were filed in
court.

Defendants’ Contentions:
Contended that this was a simple malpractice case arising from
failure to file a complaint within the applicable statute of
limitations; that the allegations of fraud, misrepresentation,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel and slander
were improper causes of action.

Damages:
Burn injuries to right eye which have left Plaintiff
unable to tear properly and maintain moisture in her right eye,
severe emotional distress, embarrassment and other
mental/psychological damages due to the handling of her case.