Fogel

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the attomeys-in-fact for subscribers of reciprocal insurance exchanges may be sued by the subscribers to recover alleged excessive fees the attorneys-in-fact collected in breach of their fiduciary duty to the subscribers. The fees were collected from premiums the subscribers paid to the exchanges. The premiums were based upon rates approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance (the Commissioner). The attomeys-in-fact contend the attorney-in-fact fees (the AIF fees) are a component of that approved rate and, therefore, the subscribers’ lawsuit is barred under Walker v. Allstate Indemnity Co. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 750 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 132 ] (Walker)—which held that Insurance Code section 1860.1 precludes claims challenging an approved rate—and the filed rate doctrine, because the lawsuit improperly seeks to recoup premiums charged in accordance with an approved rate. We hold that neither Walker , nor section 1860.1, nor the filed rate doctrine applies to this lawsuit against the attomeys-in-fact, because the attomeys-in-fact are entities distinct from the exchanges, with fiduciary relationships with each of the…