Its a shortened blog blip, and it seems that the original path to the decision is corrupt, but here is the story: “State law precluded excess insurer’s legal malpractice suit against attorneys who represented insured in personal injury suit; insurer lacked privity with attorneys and thus by statute could not assert claim for legal malpractice, and attorney’s letter to insurer, forwarding case evaluation, did not establish insurer as intended third-party beneficiary entitled to sue.: Details.