Cumis Counsel

News & Analysis as of

California Supreme Court Upholds Limited Right of Carrier to Seek Recovery of Unreasonable Fees Directly from Insured’s...

On August 10, 2015, in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, LLC, et al., the California Supreme Court held that in some circumstances insurers may seek reimbursement of payments made to the insured's...more

Insurance Recovery Law - August 2015 #2

Good News for Corporate Policyholders: Insurer Cannot Refuse Coverage Based on Insured's Assignment of Rights Under Policies After Loss Has Occurred - Why it matters: Reversing its holding in a 2003 case, the Supreme...more

Independent “Cumis” Counsel Now Face Direct Claims for Reimbursement From Insurers

On April 30, 2015, we blogged about Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, LLC, Case No. S211645, then set for oral argument in the California Supreme Court. [see the prior post: California’s “Independent”...more

Insurance Coverage – Duty to Defend – Recovery From Cumis Counsel

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C., et al. - California Supreme Court (August 10, 2015) - Under the Independent Counsel provisions of Civil Code Section 2860, a carrier that defends has...more

California Supreme Court: Insurer Can Directly Sue Independent Counsel for Excess Fees in Limited Circumstances

On August 10, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that could have broad implications regarding an insurer’s right to seek reimbursement of unreasonable fees and costs directly from so-called Cumis...more

CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under...

The California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and...more

California Supreme Court Permits Restitution Claim By Insurer Against Independent Counsel

In its recent decision in Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C., — (Cal. Aug. 10, 2015), the Supreme Court of California had occasion to consider an insurer’s right to reimbursement from Cumis counsel for...more

Insurers’ Right To Recover Fees Directly From Independent Counsel To Be Decided

Under California Civil Code 2860, an insured who is entitled to a defense from a liability insurer may also be entitled to select counsel of its choice, even though the insurance policy states that the insurer has the right...more

California’s “Independent” Cumis Counsel Regime Faces A Novel Challenge

On May 5, the California Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that has the potential to profoundly change the relationship between the insurer, its insured and the insured’s independent defense counsel under Civil Code...more

Policy Observer - December 2013

Time for a Change? California Revisits Henkel on Coverage for Contractually Acquired Liabilities - The California Supreme Court’s unexpected decision earlier this year to accept review of Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court,...more

The Latest On Duty To Defend In Calif.

In the last two months, courts in California have issued several decisions concerning the scope of an insurer’s duty to defend its insured in underlying litigation. These decisions address important matters involving the...more

California Court Clarifies What Triggers the Right to "Cumis Counsel"

Nearly 30 years ago, the California Court of Appeal announced its landmark decision in San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 3d 358 (1984), holding that if a conflict of interest...more

Is That Covered? Cumis Counsel (March, 2013)

Let's say that you or your client is sued for breach of contract and negligence. You send the suit papers to the general liability insurer and it agrees to defend the claim, but under a "reservation of rights." The basis of...more

Fifth Circuit Rejects Insured’s Efforts to Secure Independent Counsel

On October 15, 2012, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit – applying Texas law – addressed another Cumis counsel matter. See Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co., No....more

14 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×