Must a lawyer tell an insurer that a personal-injury claimant died while future pain-and-suffering claims remain in settlement talks?

Short answer Opinion 89-02 required disclosure of the claimant's death because keeping it from the insurer would misrepresent the basis for asserted future pain and suffering. It did not announce a general duty to reveal every weakness in a client's case.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1989

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer negotiating a personal-injury settlement with an insurer learned that the client had died of unrelated causes. The insurer did not know. The lawyer believed disclosure would weaken a claim that included future pain and suffering.

The committee said former DR 1-102 and DR 7-102 prohibited deceit, misrepresentation, and knowingly false statements inside and outside court. It declined to impose a broad obligation to reveal every weakness in a client's case. On these facts, however, withholding the death would allow the insurer to value future pain and suffering as if the claimant were alive. The committee found that passive nondisclosure would be misleading and required disclosure.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee require disclosure of every fact that reduced settlement value?

A: No. It expressly declined to read the former rules as broadly requiring disclosure of all case weaknesses or value-reducing facts.

Q: Why did the client's death require disclosure here?

A: Future pain and suffering had been claimed, and silence would let the insurer proceed on the false belief that the claimant was alive.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Vermont DR 1-102(4) on dishonesty and misrepresentation and DR 7-102(5) on knowingly false statements. It distinguished its earlier Opinion 82-7 concerning facts discovered after settlement.

Citations and references

Former Vermont disciplinary rules:

  • DR 1-102(4) and DR 7-102(5).

Other opinions cited:

  • Vermont Opinion 82-7.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1989. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace