|
3525 REVIEW DENIED Allegations that in an action by plaintiff an insurer agreed to indemnify its insured for intentional conduct, that plaintiff received a judgment against the insured following arbitration, that when plaintiff attempted to collect the judgment directly from the insurer the insurer's attorney represented to plaintiff that there was no coverage for intentional tort by the insured, that the attorney knew the representation was false when making it, and that plaintiff relied on the representation to his detriment, were sufficient to plead a fraud cause of action against the insurer and its attorney; such representations by the insurer's attorney would not be protected by the Litigation Privilege; since the attorney had an independent duty to refrain from fraud, plaintiff was entitled to sue the attorney for conspiracy without first obtaining leave of the court.CitationSHAFER v BERGER, KAHN... (Coverage Fraud) 107 CA4 54 [See: InsC 533; CivC 1714.10; Downey Venture v LMI 66 CA4 478, T/AT 10/98; SD Fed Credit Union v Cumis 162 CA3 358; Reliance v Superior Court 84 CA4 383, T/AT 12/00; Home Ins v Zurich 96 CA4 17, T/AT 3/02]
|
|
