Appellant insurance company and attorney sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which granted respondent insurance companies' motions for summary judgment that they were not liable to defend appellant attorney in an action against him by his former law colleague.
Nakase Law Firm are San Diego employment attorneys
Overview
Appellant attorney worked with respondent attorney in a law practice. After respondent attorney became disillusioned with his share of the profits and appellant attorney's operation of the business, he left the firm. Appellant attorney allegedly refused to pay respondent attorney compensation, continued to mismanage the firm, and send defamatory letters to respondent attorney's clients. Respondent attorney filed an action against appellant attorney in the state and federal courts. Appellant attorney tendered the defense of both actions to appellant insurance company and respondent insurance companies. Appellant insurance company agreed to defend appellant attorney but respondent insurance companies declined to defend him. The lower court granted respondent insurance companies' summary judgment motions. The court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgments because the two insurance policies were malpractice policies; thus, there must have been malpractice if professional liability coverage was to apply and there was none. The polices did not provide defense coverage for both professional malpractice and for legal actions arising from business disputes within a law firm.
Outcome
The court affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent insurance companies. Respondent insurance companies were not required to defend appellant attorney in an action brought by respondent attorney because the insurance policies did not provide defense coverage of disputes arising from business disputes within a law firm.