This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court of Georgia. Douglas Coe, Jacqueline Coe, and GFLIRB, LLC (collectively, the “Coes”), filed a renewal action against Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), related to a legal opinion provided to the Coes. After the trial court granted summary judgment to Proskauer, the Coes appealed. In Coe v. Proskauer Rose LLP (“Coe I”), 1
we affirmed the trial courts grant of summary judgment, concluding in relevant part that the Coes’ claims were barred by the statutes of limitation and that their causes of action were not tolled because the Coes would have discovered the claims within the limitation periods if they had exercised ordinary care. The Supreme Court of Georgia, however, granted certiorari and reversed our decision.
2
The Supreme Court concluded that the limitation periods for the Coes’ claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and legal malpractice must all be considered separately and that under the facts of this case, the Coes’ claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation accrued in 2002.
3
Because those claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitation, the Coes’ complaint (which was filed in 2015) is barred by the statutes of limitation unless the claims were tolled.
4
The Supreme Court further concluded that it cannot be determined as a matter of law whether the Coes’ claims were tolled because, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the Coes as non-movants on the motion for summary judgment, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the Coes failed to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering Proskauers allegedly fraudulent acts. 5
In accordance with the Supreme Courts decision, we hereby vacate Divisions 1 and 2 of Coe I, adopt the Supreme Courts opinion, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
6
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and case remanded with direction.
FOOTNOTES
1
. 360 Ga. App. 68, 860 S.E.2d 630 (2021).
2
. Coe v. Proskauer Rose, LLP, 314 Ga. 519, 878 S.E.2d 235 (2022).
3
. Id. at 525-529 (2), 878 S.E.2d 235.
4
. Id. at 529 (3), 878 S.E.2d 235.
5
. Id. at 529-533 (3), 878 S.E.2d 235.
6
. Divisions 3 and 4 of Coe I were not affected by the Supreme Courts decision and thus remain in effect. See Shadix v. Carroll County, 274 Ga. 560, 563-564 (1), 554 S.E.2d 465 (2001).
Doyle, Presiding Judge.
Miller, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.