Bank of America, N.A. v. Superior Court

Caution
151 Cal. Rptr. 3d 526·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 27·212 Cal. App. 4th 1076·2013 WL 151153
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 15, 2013No. G046829California8,687 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fybel, J.

*1083 Opinion

Introduction

When an insurer retains counsel to defend its insured, a tripartite attorney-client relationship arises among the insurer, insured, and counsel. As a consequence, confidential communications between either the insurer or the insured and counsel are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and both the insurer and insured are holders of the privilege. In addition, counsel’s work product does not lose its protection when it is transmitted to the insurer.

In this case, we hold the same tripartite attorney-client relationship arises when a title insurer retains counsel to prosecute an action on behalf of the insured pursuant to the title policy. Our holding leads us to grant the petition for writ of mandate or prohibition brought by Bank of America, N.A. (B of A), and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (Fidelity).

Fidelity is the insurer and B of A is the insured under a lender’s title policy insuring a deed of trust. When B of A made a claim under the policy, Fidelity retained the law firm of Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP (GKCJ) to prosecute, on B of A’s behalf, the underlying lawsuit for equitable subrogation, injunctive relief,…

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.