PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler
California Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
*1099CHIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I agree with the majority that as prevailing parties, Dearborn Insurance Company, Anglo-American Insurance, Ltd., and PLCM Group, Inc. (hereafter collectively PLCM) may recover from defendant David Drexler attorney fees under Civil Code section 17171 for the services of in-house counsel in this case. However, given the terms of the insurance contract here, I would limit the amount of the fee recovery to the actual cost of that representation. I disagree with the majority to the extent its opinion may be understood to hold otherwise.
I. PLCM May Recover…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Santisas v. GoodinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Trope v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1983
- Ppg Industries, Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.