Bank of Oakland v. Zurich-American Insurance Group, and Does 1-100, Inclusive

993 F.2d 881 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. BANK OF OAKLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZURICH-AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP, * and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-15094. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 15, 1993. Decided May 14, 1993. Before SCHROEDER, PREGERSON and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges. MEMORANDUM 1 1 This diversity case centers on whether there is a conflict of interest between an insurer (American Guarantee) and its insured (Bank of Oakland). Under California law, such a conflict would trigger a duty for the insurer to pay for independent counsel to represent the insured. The case also involves claims of insurance bad faith. The district court granted summary judgment for American Guarantee on the grounds that there is no duty to pay for independent counsel in this case, and that Bank of Oakland cannot demonstrate damages from the alleged bad faith. We affirm. BACKGROUND 2 American Guarantee…