statute limiting legal malpractice claims. The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that § 16-22-310 “enunciates the parameters for litigation by clients against attorneys.” Clark, supra, 323 Ark. at 388, 914 S.W.2d at 750. Allowing equitable subrogation suits would severely undercut thé Arkansas legislature’s determination of when an attorney should face potential liability for professional negligence. Additionally, allowing equitable subrogation claims in this context would, in essence, be founded on an assignment of the insured’s tort claim against its attorneys to the insurer which paid a portion of the insured’s claim. Arguably, Arkansas law does not permit the assignment of tort claims. See Midwest Mutual Insurance Co. v. Arkansas National Co., 260 Ark. 352, 538 S.W.2d 574 (1976)(<HOLDING>). In National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Salter,
holding that an embezzlement claim is not a personal injury tort claim holding that the legislature could statutorily assign an injured workers claim to his employers insurer in certain circumstances holding estoppel claim could not lie in tort where the facts that support the claim could not support a claim for fraud or misrepresentation holding that an insured could not assign its unliquidated tort claim holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim