O'CONNOR

Zenith Insurance v. O'Connor

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 4th 998·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 402·2007 Daily Journal DAR 3808·55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 911·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2940
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 2007B184684California4,020 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

In this action for professional negligence, the appellant, Zenith Insurance Company (Zenith), had entered into a contract of reinsurance with Royal Insurance Company (Royal) pursuant to which it had reinsured 100 percent of Royal’s exposure under certain liability policies. After claims were asserted against Royal’s insured, Royal retained the respondent law firm of Cozen O’Connor (Cozen) to provide legal services with respect to the defense of such claims. Ultimately, Zenith filed this action for professional negligence against Cozen, alleging that, under the circumstances, an attorney-client relationship existed between Cozen and Zenith based on (1) an implied in fact contract and (2) the theory that Zenith was an intended beneficiary of the legal services to be performed by Cozen pursuant to its retention agreement with Royal. Cozen successfully demurred to Zenith’s claim and the cause of action against it was dismissed with prejudice.

As we concur with the trial court that Cozen, who was hired by Royal, owed no duty of care to Zenith, we will affirm. The fact that Zenith had reinsured 100 percent of Royal’s potential policy liability, would thereby benefit (or…

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.