Supreme Court to Review Ruling on Insurer’s Right to Seek Reimbursement from Cumis Counsel

Publish Date:Sep 24, 2013
Summary:
In its ruling in J.R. Marketing v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, the California Court of Appeal ruled that an insurer is barred from maintaining a direct action against an independent counsel (Cumis counsel) for reimbursement of excessive fees charged by the independent counsel in mounting an insured’s defense.

In its ruling in J.R. Marketing v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, the California Court of Appeal ruled that an insurer is barred from maintaining a direct action against an independent counsel (Cumis counsel) for reimbursement of excessive fees charged by the independent counsel in mounting an insured’s defense.  Instead, the insurer’s only recourse is to bring an action for reimbursement against the insured.  The Court of Appeal’s decision was summarized in the June 14, 2013 Weekly Report.

On September 18, the California Supreme Court announced that it has accepted Hartford’s petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s ruling.  

Copyright © 2017 by the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
1415 L St., Suite 670, Sacramento, CA 95814
phone: 916-449-1370, fax: 916-449-1378