SC grants Hillblom executor’s appeal

The Supreme Court tossed out a July 6, 2000 Superior Court decision to relieve a Chicago-based risk retention group from liability in a legal malpractice action that a Larry L. Hillblom estate executor lodged against its former counsel.

The highest appellate tribunal upheld a petition submitted by Hillblom estate executor Bank of Saipan for writ of mandamus, ordering the lower court not to dismiss Attorney’s Liability Assurance Society Inc. as a defendant in the pending malpractice suit against lawyer Carlsmith Ball.

ALAS is Mr. Ball’s professional liability insurer with offices in Chicago, Illinois.

In a judgment entered last week, Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan, Associate Justice John A. Manglona and Justice Pro Tempore Alberto C. Lamorena III cited that the subject matter jurisdiction does exist as to ALAS, the real party in interest, and that the exercise of such jurisdiction does not offend due process.

The justices further instructed ALAS to post bond and/or apply for admission as an authorized insurer in the Commonwealth and answer underlying complaints.

By its own admission, ALAS has never sought or obtained a license to conduct business from any licensing authority in the CNMI, according to court papers.

This has further placed the firm in direct violation of the local Unauthorized Insurers Act adopted by the Legislature.

The act provides that before any unauthorized insurer may file any pleading in any action against it, the insurer shall file with the clerk of court a bond with good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the court, an amount sufficient to secure the payment of any final judgment which may be rendered in the action.

According to the statute, the insurer must also procure a certificate of authority to transact the business of insurance in the Commonwealth.

Meanwhile, in rendering its recent decision, the Supreme Court adopted a five-part standard to govern the issuance of extraordinary writs.

According to the three justices, the party seeking the writ has no other adequate means, such as direct appeal, to attain the relief desired, and that the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal.

The highest court also referred to the Superior Court’s judgment as clearly erroneous as matter of law and an oft-repeated error.

The lower court’s order also raises new and important problems, or issues of law of first impression, according to Supreme Court justices. (MM)