More Insurance Defense Malpractice
few jurisdictions have also acknowledged that, even if the excess insurer is not a client, it is at least a third party beneficiary of these legal services and thus entitled to bring suit. For example, in Paradigm Insurance Company v. The Langerman Law Offices,109 the Arizona Supreme Court found that although an insurer’s retention of defense counsel does not necessarily give rise to an inherent conflict of interest in every case, neither does an insurer always enjoy “client” status. The court agreed with defense counsel that “the potential for conflict between insurer and insured exists in every case; but we note the interests of insurer and insured frequently coincide.”
The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.