The Nevada Supreme Court has adopted California’s independent counsel rules, holding that an insured is entitled to select its own counsel where an insurer’s coverage reservation creates an actual conflict of interest between...more
Unfair Trade Practices Exclusion Doesn't Cover Consumer Protection Suits - Why it matters: An unfair trade practices clause did not bar coverage for a policyholder's subsidiary, an Illinois federal court ruled, ordering...more
The Nevada Supreme Court has found that an insurer must provide independent counsel for its insured when a conflict of interest arises between the insurer and the insured, adopting California’s “Cumis Counsel” rule. While...more
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
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
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
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