California Court of Appeal

Reset A A Font size: Print

J.R. Marketing v. Hartford Casualty, A133750

In action for reimbursement of allegedly excessive or otherwise inappropriate legal fees and costs billed by independent counsel for plaintiff to defendant-insurer after defendant-insurer disclaimed coverage for the action under the relevant insurance policy, judgment for the independent counsel is affirmed, where: 1) when a conflict arises with respect to defense fees or costs paid by an insurer in breach of its duty to defend to the independent counsel hired by its insured following this breach, the insurer must look to the insured, not independent counsel, to resolve the conflict; and 2) as to Harrington, an individual named as a defendant in the underlying tort matter but not insured by defendant-insurer, defendant-insurer failed to state facts supporting its reimbursement cause of action against Harrington, and to present timely and legally-supported arguments as to how the trial court erred or how the operative complaint could be amended to remove any defect.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 06/11/2013
  • Published 06/11/2013

Judges

  • JENKINS

Court

  • California Court of Appeal

Counsel

Copied to clipboard