Legal Opinion

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Federal Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 18, 1999No. F031707PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LEVY, J.

The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether, for purposes of disqualification, the attorney representing an insured is also representing the insurance company. If the insurance company is a client, this case poses a secondary question regarding the applicable disqualification standard. The issue becomes whether the insurance company is a *1426“former” or a “concurrent” client when the attorney files a complaint naming the insurance company as a defendant and then settles the insured’s case.

When presented with these issues, the trial court denied the disqualification…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Flatt v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Lysick v. WalcomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  3. Comden v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  4. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  5. Atlanta International Insurance v. BellMichigan Supreme Court · 1991

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Concat Lp v. Unilever, PlcDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2004
  2. Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & AssociatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  3. Bank of America, N.A. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District CourtNevada Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Koo v. Rubio's Restaurants, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API