San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc.
Citation | 208 Cal.Rptr. 494,162 Cal.App.3d 358 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Decision Date | 03 December 1984 |
Parties | , 50 A.L.R.4th 913 SAN DIEGO NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CUMIS INSURANCE SOCIETY, INC., Defendant and Appellant. D000911. Civ. 31043. |
Hardin, Cook, Loper, Engel & Bergez, Gennaro A. Filice III, Oakland, and Roberta E. Nalbandian, Sacramento, for defendant and appellant.
Breidenbach, Swainston, Yokaitis & Crispo, Los Angeles, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, W.F. Rylaarsdam, Los Angeles, Jeanne E. Emrich, Long Beach, Ronald E. Mallen, San Francisco, Michael J. Brady, Redwood City, David R. Fuller, Chico, Raoul D. Kennedy, Oakland, Paul H. Cyril and David W. Gordon, San Francisco, as amici curiae on behalf of defendant and appellant.
Saxon, Alt, Brewer & Kincannon and Mark A. Saxon, San Diego, for plaintiffs and respondents.
Leonard Sacks, Northridge, Robert E. Cartwright, Harvey R. Levine, San Diego, Wylie A. Aitken, Santa Ana, Harlan Arnold, Beverly Hills, Glen T. Bashore, North Fork, Ray Bourhis, San Francisco, Richard D. Bridgman, Oakland, Edwin Train Caldwell, San Francisco, David S. Casey, Jr., San Diego, Victoria DeGoff, Berkeley Douglas K. deVries, Sacramento, H. Grieg Fowler, San Francisco, Sanford M. Gage, Beverly Hills, Ian Herzog, Los Angeles, G. Dana Hobart, Marina Del Rey, Stanley K. Jacobs, Los Angeles, John C. McCarthy, Claremont, Timothy W. Peach, San Bernardino, R.H. Sulnick, Los Angeles, Arne Werchick, Sausalito, and Stephen Zetterberg, Claremont, as amici curiae on behalf of plaintiffs and respondents.
*
Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (Cumis) appeals a judgment requiring Cumis to pay the San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union, J.W. Jamieson and Larry R. Sharp (insureds) all reasonable past and future expenses of their independent counsel retained for the defense of a lawsuit filed against the insureds by Magdaline S. Eisenmann (Eisenmann action). 1
The issue presented to this court by the appeal is whether an insurer is required to pay for independent counsel for an insured when the insurer provides its own counsel but reserves its right to assert noncoverage at a later date. We conclude under these circumstances there is a conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured, and therefore the insured has a right to independent counsel paid for by the insurer.
The Eisenmann action against the insureds seeks $750,000 general and $6.5 million punitive damages for tortious wrongful discharge, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful interference with and inducing breach of contract, breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Under insurance policies issued by Cumis, the insureds tendered the defense of the Eisenmann action to Cumis. Cumis associate counsel Willis E. McAllister reviewed the complaint in the Eisenmann action and concluded Cumis had a duty to provide a defense to the insureds. McAllister selected and retained, at Cumis' expense, the San Diego law firm of Goebel & Monaghan to represent the interests of the insureds in the Eisenmann action. McAllister informed Goebel & Monaghan it was to represent the insureds as to all claims in the Eisenmann action, including the punitive damages claim. He also told Goebel & Monaghan Cumis was reserving its right to deny coverage at a later date and the insurance policies did not cover punitive damages.
McAllister sent Goebel & Monaghan copies of the insurance policies in effect and letters accepting the defense and reserving rights which were delivered to the insureds. McAllister never asked Goebel & Monaghan for an opinion whether coverage existed under the insurance policies, nor did Goebel & Monaghan give any coverage advice to either Cumis or the insureds.
McAllister believed if the Eisenmann action resulted in a finding of wilful conduct or an award of punitive damages, the Cumis policies did not provide coverage for those damages. Moreover, his view was if the Eisenmann action resulted in a finding of breach of contract as against any of the insureds, there might be no coverage under the relevant Cumis policies. Accordingly, on behalf of Cumis, McAllister notified each insured by letter Cumis was reserving its rights to disclaim coverage and denying any coverage for punitive damages. 2
The Credit Union retained the San Diego law firm of Saxon, Alt & Brewer (independent counsel) to provide independent representation to protect the insureds' interests. Independent counsel notified Cumis it was retained to act as co-counsel with Goebel & Monaghan and presented Cumis a claim for its attorneys' fees and costs. McAllister was persuaded California law required Cumis to pay the fees, and he agreed to pay the fees and costs incurred by independent counsel as co-counsel for the insureds. Cumis paid two separate invoices for legal services of independent counsel but additional invoices were not paid. After independent counsel sent a demand letter to Cumis and further discussed the matter with McAllister, McAllister sought a separate opinion on the question from Cumis' home office and asked Goebel & Monaghan if it felt there was a conflict of interest in representing the insureds such that Cumis would be required to pay the expenses of separate counsel. Goebel & Monaghan told McAllister it did not see a conflict of interest. Cumis' home office came to the same conclusion and McAllister notified independent counsel Cumis would pay no further invoices.
In the Eisenmann action settlement conference, the case did not settle after a demand within the Cumis policy limits. Cumis authorized Goebel & Monaghan to make an offer at the settlement conference but in an amount lower than Eisenmann's demand. Goebel & Monaghan did not contact the Credit Union before or during the settlement conference, but informed the Credit Union about the conference afterward.
In this action, the trial court ruled Cumis is required to pay for the insureds' hiring of independent counsel, rejecting Cumis' argument the court was bound by Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 263, 54 Cal.Rptr. 104, 419 P.2d 168, and reasoning:
The court further explained its ruling:
In the usual tripartite relationship existing between insurer, insured and counsel, there is a single, common interest shared among them. Dual representation by counsel is beneficial since the shared goal of minimizing or eliminating liability to a third party is the same. A different situation is presented, however, when some or all of the allegations in the complaint do not fall within the scope of coverage under the policy. In such a case, the standard practice of an insurer is to defend under a reservation of rights where the insurer promises to defend but states it may not indemnify the insured if liability is found. In this situation, there may be little commonality of interest. 3 Opposing poles of interest are represented on the one hand in the insurer's desire to establish in the third party suit the insured's "liability rested on intentional conduct" (Gray, supra, 65 Cal.2d 263, 279, 54 Cal.Rptr. 104, 419 P.2d 168), and thus no coverage under the policy, and on the other hand in the insured's desire to "obtain a ruling ... such liability emanated from the nonintentional conduct within his insurance coverage" (ibid.). Although issues of coverage under the policy are not actually litigated in the third party suit, this does not detract from the force of these opposing interests as they operate on the attorney selected by the insurer, who has a dual agency status (see Tomerlin v. Canadian Indemnity Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 638, 647, 39 Cal.Rptr. 731, 394 P.2d 571). 4
Here, it is uncontested the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
California Shoppers, Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
... ... as well as vice versa." (Commercial Union Assurance Companies v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 26 ... The court, in Dodge v. San Diego Electric Ry. Co., 92 Cal.App.2d 759, 208 ... issue is present." (San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) ... ...
-
Israelsky v. Title Ins. Co.
...to the outcome of issues being litigated in the underlying proceeding. (See e.g. San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 370-372, 208 Cal.Rptr. 494 (Cumis ); Executive Aviation, Inc. v. National Ins. Underwriters (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 799, 809-81......
-
Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Albert D. Seeno Const.
...these third-party claims. Wausau reserved its rights to deny coverage, and in March 1986 Seeno exercised its rights to engage independent Cumis counsel paid for by Wausau.1 Seeno has requested that Wausau take responsibility for handling claims that have not yet reached formal litigation (t......
-
Mosier v. Southern California Physicians Ins. Exchange
...general counsel for an insurance company, expert witness, and lecturer. He generally explained what liability insurance was; explained the Cumis case; the legislative history of Civil Code section 2860; and defined the term "reservation of rights." He discussed the concepts of good faith an......
-
Nevada Supreme Court Holds That California Cumis Rule Applies In Nevada, But An Actual Conflict Is A Prerequisite For Independent Counsel
...24, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the California rule first announced in San Diego Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc'y, 162 Cal. App. 3d 358 (1984), and the analysis of the California Court of Appeal's decision in Fed. Ins. Co. v. MBL, Inc., 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 910, 920 (Ct. App.......
-
California Court Confirms Limitations On Right To Independent Counsel
...the court began its analysis by noting the general rule established in San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, 162 Cal. App. 3d 358 (4th Dist. 1984), that if a conflict of interest exists between an insurer and its insured, based on possible noncoverage under the ins......
-
Two Important Insurance Matters Set For The California Supreme Courts May Calendar
...requiring an insurer to provide independent counsel to the insured (see San Diego Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358), can the insurer seek reimbursement of defense fees and costs it considers unreasonable and unnecessary by pursuing a reimbursement actio......
-
Nevada Supreme Court Adopts Cumis Independent Counsel Rule, But Refuses To Hold That Reservation Of Rights Letter Always Presents A Conflict
...has been devoted, all across the country, to these issues in the intervening years, Moeller may be ripe for clarification. Footnotes 208 Cal. Rptr. 494, 506 (Ct. App. 1984), superseded by statute as stated in United Enters., Inc. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25 (Ct. App. No. 64484, ......
-
Case Evaluation & Prelitigation Considerations
...pay the reasonable cost for hiring independent counsel by the insured.” San Diego Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc’y, Inc ., 162 Cal. App. 3d 358, 375 (1984). D. Joint Representation Issues [§4:178] An employee may sue both his employer and an individual employee responsible for the......
-
Insurance Recovery for Environmental Liabilities
...provide independent attorney or pay costs of insured’s chosen counsel); San Diego Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc’y, Inc., 162 Cal. App. 3d 358, 371–72 (Ct. App. 1984), superseded by CAL. CIV. CODE § 2860; Thornton v. Paul, 384 N.E.2d 335, 348 (Ill. 1978) (insurer facing conflict m......
-
CHAPTER 8
...independent “Cumis” counsel—so called after the eponymous decision of San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc.(1984) 162 Cal. App. 3d 358, 208 Cal. Rptr. 494—in accordance with Civil Code section 2860. Buss acknowledged Transamerica’s reservation of rights with a reservati......
-
CHAPTER 11
...value of legal services and costs performed by Independent Counsel selected by the insured.” Cumis, 162 Cal. App. 3d at 364 N.3, 208 Cal. Rptr. 494 (quoting Purdy v. Pac. Auto. Ins. Co., 157 Cal. App. 3d 59, 76, (1984) (Citations omitted) [Brackets in original.] Other cases of interest incl......