Bales

CALIFORNIA STATE AUTO. ASSN. v. Bales

Good Law
221 Cal. App. 3d 227·270 Cal. Rptr. 421
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 14, 1990A044424California2,252 words

Opinion

Opinion

Weinberg, Campbell & Stone, Michael T. Stone and Joann M. Cook for Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, Michael P. Bradley and Ryan T. Russell for Cross-defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

BARRY-DEAL, Acting P.J.

(1a) In this appeal we decide whether an insurer, sued by a third party claimant for violation of Insurance Code section 790.03, may obtain comparative equitable indemnity from the claimant's former attorney on the theory that the attorney's negligence at least partially caused the claimant's damage. We hold that public policy in favor of preserving the undivided loyalty of lawyer to client dictates that the insurer may not obtain indemnity in this situation. We affirm.

This is an appeal from judgment after the demurrer of respondent Bruce Bales (Bales) to the cross-complaint of appellant California State Automobile Association Inter-Insurance Bureau (CSAA) was sustained without leave to amend. Our review of the facts is limited. (2) "`We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.'…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.