Vandermay v. Clayton

At a contentious business-sale closing, buyer Harris rejected the environmental-liability agreement his attorney Clayton (defendant) had drafted for seller Vandermay (plaintiff) and proposed his own version, imposing broader liability on Vandermay beyond the $5,000 cap Vandermay had wanted; Clayton nodded that it was okay to sign, and Vandermay did, later paying over $585,000 in a settlement over site contamination. Vandermay sued Clayton for malpractice, alleging Clayton failed to properly advise him about the liability he was accepting by signing the revised agreement; the trial court excluded Vandermay's expert witness for inadequate foundation and granted Clayton a directed verdict, holding expert testimony was required to prove legal malpractice, but the court of appeals reversed, and Clayton sought further review.