|
A ''Cumis'' counsel is "an attorney employed by a defendant in a lawsuit when there is a liability insurance policy supposedly covering the claim, but there is a conflict of interest between the insurance company and the insured defendant."〔(Definition from Law.com's Law Dictionary (based on the People's Law Dictionary) )〕 == The landmark 1984 ''Cumis'' decision == The title of this type of lawyer comes from the ''Cumis'' case from California, which was decided by the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District on December 3, 1984.〔''San Diego Navy Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc.'', (162 Cal. App. 3d 358, 208 Cal. Rptr. 494 ) (1984).〕 It is by far the most notorious case on this issue and is commonly mistaken to be the first appellate endorsement of the appointment of independent counsel for defense of insureds whose insurance company has a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court of California actually endorsed the concept of independent counsel in an earlier 1964 case, which in turn cited to and was based upon the 1925 Kentucky case that laid the foundation in the first place for the notion of independent counsel in the insurer-insured relationship.〔 The only real innovations introduced by the ''Cumis'' court over existing precedent as of 1984 were its express holdings that the insurer was actually obligated to ''pay'' for the insured's independent counsel, and that the mere ''potential'' of a conflict of interest was enough to trigger the insured's right to independent counsel.〔 The most important paragraph from the ''Cumis'' decision is as follows: :We conclude the Canons of Ethics impose upon lawyers hired by the insurer an obligation to explain to the insured and the insurer the full implications of joint representation in situations where the insurer has reserved its rights to deny coverage. If the insured does not give an informed consent to continued representation, counsel must cease to represent both. Moreover, in the absence of such consent, where there are divergent interests of the insured and the insurer brought about by the insurer's reservation of rights based on possible noncoverage under the insurance policy, the insurer must pay the reasonable cost for hiring independent counsel by the insured. The insurer may not compel the insured to surrender control of the litigation ... Disregarding the common interests of both insured and insurer in finding total nonliability in the third party action, the remaining interests of the two diverge to such an extent as to create an actual, ethical conflict of interest warranting payment for the insureds' independent counsel.〔''Cumis'', 162 Cal. App. 3d at 375.〕 The California State Legislature subsequently enacted a statute governing the right of insured defendants to independent counsel.〔See (California Civil Code section 2860 ).〕 A common conflict is when the insurance company denies or refuses to defend all or part of a claim under a liability insurance policy, such as when an insurance company pays for the defense of a policyholder under a reservation of rights.〔(Definition at the Legal Explanations Web site ).〕 A "reservation of rights" letter usually states that the insurance company reserves its rights to later deny the claim should facts surface that prevent coverage, such as facts that would preclude coverage under a policy term or exclusion. A law firm can still have a conflict of interest, despite the appointment of a ''Cumis'' counsel.〔("Cumis Conundrum" from Duane Morris newsletter ).〕 However, in some states, the appointment can cure a conflict.〔(Findlaw.com ), citing ''Finley v. The Home Insurance Co.'', 1998 WL 905218 (Haw. 1998).〕 The appointment of ''Cumis'' counsel also raises unusual attorney–client privilege issues.〔(See the State Bar of California ethics opinion on the issue of privileged records ).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Cumis counsel」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|