While perusing the Indiana Law Blog, I came upon this post entitled Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides insurance assignment case.
In this case styled State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Ruth Estep, in which State Farm had offered its limits which were declined by the plaintiff. State Farm continued to defend, but a verdict was obtained against their insured in excess of those limits. The defendant assigned globally his/her causes of action to include those against State Farm and the lawyer whom they paid to defend the insured.
The Indiana Court held the assignment of the claim against State Farm was valid but not the legal negligence claim's assignment.
This is an interesting thought since within the context of Kentucky jurisprudence, the fabled "tripartite" relationship in which the lawyer owes a duty to both the insurer AND the insured might be possibly suspect in the event that a conflict of interest arises, an excess verdict, a perceived legal malpractice in the representation, and then the subsequent assignment by the individual defendant of his claims against his insurer and his lawyer. Even if the assignment of the legal negligence claim is "disallowed", how then do you separate the two sides of that tripartite relationship when the relationship goes sour.
Could this happen in Kentucky? Well, let me remind you that insurance defense lawyer's duties are being tested in the Court of Appeals in a case that has already been argued in which the focus is on which insurance policy will end up paying the plaintiff's excess judgment? The insurance defense law firm's malpractice policy or the insurance company that paid/hired them? See, Insurance Defense Lawyers Duties, Responsibilities, and Liabilities to be tested in Court of Appeals decision argued this past week which we posted this spring.
Here is an extract from that Indiana case "borrowed" from Marcia Oddi's posting. You can click on her summary to note that there was a dissent in this case. See, Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court decides insurance assignment case.
In this motor vehicle collision case, defendant’s insurance carrier offered to pay policy limits even as it continued to defend its insured. Plaintiff refused the offer. A jury awarded damages above policy limits, and the carrier immediately paid on its policy.
In proceedings supplemental, the trial court ordered the insured to assign any cause of action he might have against his insurer and directed plaintiff’s counsel to prepare the assignment. The assignment became a global one, which plaintiff deployed to sue both the carrier and defendant’s personal attorney. We held fifteen years ago, however, that assigning claims against lawyers is impermissible. Most of the reasons for that rule also pertain to involuntary assignments such as the one before us. * * *
The trial court’s order requiring Perkins’ forced assignment of his chose in action against State Farm was error. This does not in any way prohibit Perkins from directly suing State Farm or from voluntarily assigning his chose in action.
Conclusion. We reverse the order issued during proceedings supplemental forcing Perkins’ assignment of any potential chose in action against State Farm and hold invalid any assignment by Perkins against his attorneys
Comments