SIMPSON v. CALIVAS Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1994 650 A.2d 318 FACTS: Parties: Appellant: Robert H. Simpson (Π) Appellee: Christopher Calivas (Δ) Procedural History: Probate Court dismissed Π’s claims Π appealed Trial court granted SJ in favor of Δ Π appealed Superior Court directed a verdict in favor of Δ Π appealed Relevant Facts: March 1984 Simpson Sr. executed a will that had been drafted by Δ The will left all real estate to Π except for a life estate in the homestead left to Sr.’s wife Roberta 1985 Sr. dies Jr. and Roberta sought a determination of whether homestead was just the house or the house, land and buildings used in the family business Π bought out all real property from Roberta for $400,000 ISSUE: Whether a drafting attorney owes a duty to an intended beneficiary PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Appellant: Appellee: DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: Reversed and remanded RULE OF LAW: A drafting attorney owes a duty of reasonable care to intended beneficiaries HOLDING: Δ owed a duty of care to Π, as an intended beneficiary, when drafting Π’s father’s will COURT’S REASONING: The privity of contract rule will be excepted where the risk to persons not in privity is apparent The majority of other jurisdictions hold that there is a duty of care owed by attorneys to intended beneficiaries of a will There is an emphasis on the foreseeability of injury to the intended beneficiary A probate court can consider extrinsic evidence when the terms of the will are ambiguous in order to determine the testator’s intent to the extent it does not contradict the express terms of the will