Rose v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
West Virginia Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceDavis, J.
In this case the majority opinion has concluded that a defense attorney cannot be held liable under the Unfair Trade Practices Act for improper litigation conduct while defending an insured. The majority opinion has also concluded that an insurer maybe held vicariously liable, under the Act, for improper conduct by defense counsel, if the insurer has knowledge of the improper conduct and encourages, directs, participates in, relies upon or ratifies such conduct. I embrace both holdings by the majority opinion and therefore concur in the disposition of this case. I have chosen to write…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Givens v. Mullikin Ex Rel. McElwaneyTennessee Supreme Court · 2002
- Herbert A. Sullivan, Inc. v. Utica Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2003
- Merritt v. Reserve InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Harvey Thomas Smoot, Jr. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- Continental Insurance Co. v. Bayless & Roberts, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1980
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.