Tseng

LAZY ACRES MARKET, INC. v. Tseng

Good Law
152 Cal. App. 4th 1431·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 1113·62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 378
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 3, 2007B189115California2,033 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

An insurance company agrees to defend its insured in a negligence action without a reservation of rights. The insured hires its own attorney to represent it because it believes the insurance company’s attorney has a conflict of interest. The insurance company settles the suit, which is dismissed against the insured. The insured now wishes to recover its attorney fees. Does the insured have a cause of action for malpractice against the insurance company’s attorney? No. The insurance company gave the insured a safety net. The insurance company’s attorney does not have to pay for a second one. There is no causal relation between the attorney’s alleged breach of duty and damages.

We aflBrm the judgment entered pursuant to the order sustaining the demurrer.

FACTS

The second amended complaint alleges as follows:

Lazy Acres Market, Inc., hired Premier Protective Services (Premier) to apprehend shoplifters in its market. The contract required Premier to defend and indemnify Lazy Acres Market, Inc., its shareholders and employees (hereinafter collectively Lazy Acres) for any claims arising out of Premier’s loss prevention activities. Premier obtained a policy of insurance from…

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.