Outside the court’s reasoning, conclusions and excess carrier’s common-practice, I cannot stop and think that an excess carrier should always obtain their own counsel.
To do otherwise, would be at their own risk. (pun intended)
If anything, it seems to me that this secondary/tertiary relationship to the primary and secondary client of an alleged malpractice counsel, i.e. the insured and the insurer, is far too remote. A pandora’s box of precedence.
And who’s interest was the law firm serving when it missed it’s deadline, prejudiced the case, and by it’s own status reports admitted to costing the carrier as much as 2 million as a direct result of it’s own negligence?
Of course, there is no interest served when a law firm mishandles litigation to the detriment of any concerned parties. The issue is whether a duty is owed to an excess insurer.
To me the answer is simply what defines the attorney-client relationship and along that line, what, if any duties are owed to parties with a common interest, e.g. an excess insurer.
Beyond that, it quickly becomes more complicated when factoring admitted litgation mishandling, known monetary damages and a obvious failed common interest.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Thank you for your interesting article.
Outside the court’s reasoning, conclusions and excess carrier’s common-practice, I cannot stop and think that an excess carrier should always obtain their own counsel.
To do otherwise, would be at their own risk. (pun intended)
If anything, it seems to me that this secondary/tertiary relationship to the primary and secondary client of an alleged malpractice counsel, i.e. the insured and the insurer, is far too remote. A pandora’s box of precedence.
And who’s interest was the law firm serving when it missed it’s deadline, prejudiced the case, and by it’s own status reports admitted to costing the carrier as much as 2 million as a direct result of it’s own negligence?
Of course, there is no interest served when a law firm mishandles litigation to the detriment of any concerned parties. The issue is whether a duty is owed to an excess insurer.
To me the answer is simply what defines the attorney-client relationship and along that line, what, if any duties are owed to parties with a common interest, e.g. an excess insurer.
Beyond that, it quickly becomes more complicated when factoring admitted litgation mishandling, known monetary damages and a obvious failed common interest.
Talk about a bad day at the office…