Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Equitable Subrogation

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals properly concluded that an excess insurer  may not bring an action for legal malpractice against the insured's attorneys: "Emphasizing the paramount importance of a lawyer's duties of client loyalty and maintaining client confidentiality, the court [of appeals] considers Indiana decisions concerning the doctrine of equitable subrogation and the prohibtion against assignment of legal claims...We find the analysis and conclusion of the Court of Appeals to be sound and proper."

A dissent would allow the insurer to bring the action "without access to any confidential client information of any kind whatsoever. But I would not close the courthouse door to an insurance company that is willling and able to do so. " (Mike Frisch)

The Practice | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Equitable Subrogation:


Post a comment