Long

Long v. Century Indemnity Co.

Good Law
163 Cal. App. 4th 1460·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 919·78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 17, 2008B195281California5,954 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

— After agreeing to provide a defense to its insured under a reservation of rights, an insurer elects not to have counsel representing its own interests participate in the third party action and instead allows counsel selected by the insured to conduct and control the entire defense. Is a subsequent fee dispute between the insured’s counsel and the insurer subject to mandatory arbitration under Civil Code section 2860, subdivision (c), which applies whenever an insurer, because of a conflict of interest, has a duty to provide independent (Cumis) counsel to represent its insured? (See San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358 [ 208 Cal.Rptr. 494 ].)

Contending the answer to this question must be no, Jay B. Long argues the trial court erred in dismissing his first amended complaint against Century Indemnity Company and eight other insurance companies seeking to recover additional fees for the representation of his client, G. Harris International (Harris), in an environmental cleanup lawsuit. In fact, the correct answer to the question is yes, provided the reservation of rights creates a conflict of interest that trigger the…

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.