California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Novak v. Low, 77 Cal.App.4th 278, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 (Cal. App. 1999):
Respondents rely on Lysick v. Walcom (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 136, 150 (Lysick) to bolster their argument that they owed no duty to the insured when negotiating settlement of the insured's claims because the firm was hired to represent only the insurer. They quote the following passage: "Accordingly, where the attorney properly represents only the insurance company in the matter of settlement, it is his duty to protect the interests of the insurance company in that respect including protection against liability for failure to discharge its duties to the insured. In such a situation, if the attorney fails to give proper consideration to the interests of the insured in his recommendations with respect to the settlement of the case and the insurance company acts upon that recommendation causing loss to the insured, there is no cause of action against the attorney because he owes no duty in that respect to the insured. In that case the insured's cause of action is only against the insurance company." (Lysick, supra, at p. 150, italics added.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.