Discovery
Civ-Pro
Case Summary |
|
0936 DEPUBLISHED An attorney who was paid by an insurance carrier to act as Cumis counsel to an insured was in a position antagonistic to the carrier and therefore may not have been acting under a conflict of interest when representing a different client in a bad faith action against the same carrier.CitationGIANNINI v LEE (Cumis Conflict) 36 CA4 600 [See: CA R of ProfCond 3-310; Santa Clara v Woodside 7 C4 525; Flatt v SuperCt 9 C4 275, T/AT 2/95; SDFCU v Cumis 162 CA3 358] |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||