Legal Opinion
Kroll & Tract v. Paris & Paris
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 24, 1999No. G019790PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
Sound policy reasons prohibit an attorney sued for malpractice by a former client from cross-complaining for indemnity against the client’s successor attorney. Here, we are asked to decide whether these same concerns should bar an indemnity cross-complaint between two independent attorneys who concurrently represented the dissatisfied client, one as insurance defense counsel and one as Cumis1 counsel, where the client subsequently sued only one of the attorneys. We hold that public policy considerations preclude such a cross-complaint for indemnity and affirm the trial…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Mitchell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Twin City Fire Insurance Company v. Ben Arnold-Sunbelt Beverage Company Of South Carolina, LpCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & AssociatesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Sheetz, Inc. v. Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, PLLCWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2001
- Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Griffin Dewatering Corp. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New YorkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.