An insured and an excess insurer

Appellants, an insured and an excess insurer, sought review of orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, ADA compliance & defense attorney granting respondent excess insurer's motion for summary judgment denying appellants' claim for contribution of the costs of settling a claim against the insured.Two excess insurers provided liability coverage to the same insured for the same risk, although for differing policy periods. The insured was sued by a third party concerning disparaging statements allegedly made by the insured about the third party's business and products. Both insurers denied coverage on the grounds that the complaint against insured established that there was no potential for coverage, as no claim for personal injury was asserted.

The insured settled the matter without the insurers' assistance. After settlement of the action, one insurer reconsidered its obligation and paid all of the settlement costs. The paying insurer then proceeded against the non-paying insurer for division of the settlement costs on an equitable basis. The matter came before the appellate court for review. Disparaging remarks fell within the meaning of "personal injury" under the policies. Under theories of equitable contribution and subrogation, a division of the costs among the insurers was proper. Visit the employment law firm Los Angeles for the employment attorney.

The judgment was reversed, and the matter was remanded with directions. Petitioner attorney sought review of findings by the Review Department of the State Bar Court (California) that she failed to perform competently, continued representation knowing she could not perform competently, and withdrew from employment without protecting her client's interests. They recommended a three-year suspension with the execution stayed and one-year probation with an actual suspension from the practice of law for six months.

Petitioner attorney filed suit against respondent state bar after the Review Department of the State Bar Court (review department) found that she failed to perform competently and continued representation knowing she could not perform competently as required by Rules of Professional Conduct, former Rule 6-101(A)(2) and (B), and withdrew from employment without protecting her client's interests under Rules of Professional Conduct, former Rule 2-11(A)(2). Petitioner sought a new hearing and argued that the recommended discipline of a three-year suspension with the execution stayed and one-year probation with an actual suspension of six months was excessive. The court held that petitioner waived the claim that the hearing referee improperly failed to disqualify himself; even though evidentiary errors occurred, they did not require a new hearing; the evidence was insufficient to support one of the three disciplinary violations found; two aggravating circumstances were unsupported by the record; and the recommended discipline was excessive. The court ordered that the period of actual suspension imposed should be 60 days, not six months as recommended by the review department.

The court refused to grant petitioner attorney a new hearing because she waived her claim that the hearing referee failed to disqualify himself and she was not prejudiced by any evidentiary errors. The court ordered that petitioner's actual suspension be reduced from six months to 60 days because the evidence was insufficient to support one of the three disciplinary violations and two aggravating circumstances found by respondent state bar.

I'm Anne Tyner. I provide guest post service