Haven

Assurance Co. of America v. Haven

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 94·32 Cal. App. 4th 78·38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 25·95 Daily Journal DAR 1710·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 970
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 1995C017023California5,631 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

In this case, a liability insurer defended its insured under a reservation of rights that created a conflict of interest between the two of them. The issue on appeal is whether a liability insurer can sue its insured’s Cumis counsel for negligence based on a breach of statutory duty for failing — in contravention of Civil Code section 2860 — to inform and consult with the insurer in a timely manner, to disclose to the insurer all nonprivileged information, and to cooperate in exchanging information with insurer-provided counsel. (Civ. Code, § 2860, subds. (d), (f).) We conclude the answer is yes where these failures encompassed nonprivileged information known to Cumis counsel and precluded the insurer, as alleged here, from timely asserting a complete defense to an entire action or to a cause of action that had been brought against its insured.

We also conclude that Cumis counsel cannot be held negligently or statutorily liable to the insurer for failing to investigate, prepare, assert, establish, or perform similar functions regarding that complete defense. In line with Civil Code section 2860 (which codified and clarified the Cumis decision) and the recognized…

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.