Legal Opinion

Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich v. Vigilant Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 12, 2004No. D041811PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

Civil Code section 2860 (all undesignated statutory references are to this code) requires that an insurer provide independent counsel to its insured in certain conflict situations, and subdivision (c) of this section requires the arbitration of “any dispute concerning attomey[] fees . . ..” In this appeal we address the question of whether this section encompasses disputes between an insurer and its insured over the insurer’s responsibility for defense expenses incurred by the insured’s independent counsel. We conclude section 2860 does not require the arbitration of…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Lungren v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  2. People v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
  4. Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  5. California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Compulink Management Center, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. GRAY CARY v. Vigilant Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 2004
  3. An Independent Home Support Service, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  4. Janopaul + Block Companies, LLC v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Weingarten Realty Investors v. ChiangCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

13 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