Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Wills, David J. And Marcia
Year 1997
Court Indiana Supreme Court
Case Number 795-00-9808 CV 458
Issue
  • Conflict of Interest
State
  • Indiana

Insurers should not be allowed to use in-house employee-attorneys to defend policyholder clients because the inherent conflict of interest robs the policyholder of the right to a vigorous, independent and zealous defense.

Related Docs
Author UP's brief was written pro bono by David V. Miller, Esq. of Bowers Harrison Kent & Miller, LLP, and Eugene R. Anderson and William G. Passannante of Anderson Kill Olick, PC
Related Cases
Cincinnati Insurance Company, Inc. vs. Wills, David J. And Marcia
Year: 1997
Court: Indiana Supreme Court
Case Number: 795-00-9808 CV 458
Issue:
  • Conflict of Interest
State:
  • Indiana

Insurers should not be allowed to use in-house employee-attorneys to defend policyholder clients because the inherent conflict of interest robs the policyholder of the right to a vigorous, independent and zealous defense.
Jones, Janet and Jones, Terry v. Allstate Insurance Co et al
Year: 1999
Court: Washington State Court of Appeals
Case Number: 46005-6-1
Issue:
  • Conflict of Interest
State:
  • Washington

Allstate cannot be allowed to deceive policyholders and third party claimants by failing to inform them they may be in an adversarial position with the insurance company and that the insurance company has no obligation to protect the victim.
Hakimfer v. ROC Design
Year: 2010
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5
Case Number: SC 106414
Issue:
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Reservation of Rights
State:
  • California

Counsel provided by the insurer under duty to defend failed to disclose to the insured the potential for a conflict of interest, in violation of attorney professional rules of conduct.