• Subscribe to our blog

  Leave Blank:Do Not Change:

  Your email:
  

   

• Recently Written

  • To all Vets and to their families and friends, and loved ones, we pause to say “Thank You.” The photo was taken in Vietnam, circa 1967.
  • ANNOUNCEMENT—February 5, 2015
  • Good Bye Justice Croskey
  • A WORD ABOUT OBAMA, C.S. LEWIS, COURAGE AND OTHER SOUND BITES
  • CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT ADOPTS STACKING

• Archives

  • November 2015
  • February 2015
  • September 2014
  • January 2014
  • August 2012
  • November 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
• Search for:

As a coverage firm, this is a proud day for us! We represent the very prestigious UNITED POLICYHOLDERS in connection with an Amicus brief that we filed today. UP, of course, is a non-profit 501(c) (3) organization that is an independent information resource and a voice for insurance consumers in all 50 states.

Our brief was filed in the case Hakimfar v. ROC Design, Inc. (Demler, Armstrong & Rowland, Real Party in Interest), Case No. B228541.  UP (and several others) are asking the Court of Appeal, Second District, Div. 5, not to allow dismissal of an appeal  which Lexington Insurance  has made moot by settling with plaintiffs during the appeal. Why should the case not be dismissed? Because the record of this case establishes that insurer-selected counsel, as a matter of industry-wide, pattern and practice, choose not to comply with the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310. These are the “rules of the road” for lawyers. They include the duties to (a) identify and (b) disclose in writing conflicts of interest and (c) to not accept or continue representation of clients absent an informed written consent by both the insured and the insurer. UP says “policyholders are entitled to expect transparent fidelity.”

Here’s the way our brief put it: “Given Lexington’s admission of the existence of conflicts, the [insurer-selected] firm’s refusal to explain the conflicts and the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences puts the insured in the position of being a passenger in the backseat of a car in which the muted “driver” will not disclose the hoped-for destination, the planned route or even the likely road hazards along the way.”

Comments