"Canons of Ethics impose upon lawyers hired by the insurer an obligation to explain to the insured and the insurer the full implications of joint representation in situations where the insurer has reserved its rights to deny coverage. If the insured does not give an informed consent, counsel must cease to represent both." (San Diego Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 375.)

Have you done this? If not, I invite you to do so now.

"The potential for conflict requires a careful analysis of the parties' respective interests." (Dynamic Concepts, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 999, 1007). "There is no talismanic rule that allows a facile determination of whether a disqualifying conflict of interest exists. Instead, '[t]he potential for conflict requires a careful analysis of the parties' respective interests to determine whether they can be reconciled . . . or whether an actual conflict of interest precludes insurer-appointed defense counsel from presenting a quality defense for the insured.'" (Gulf Ins. Co. v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 114, 131.)

I am not qualified to do this analysis. Can I rely upon you to do so?

A proper analysis should include: "(1) what is the exact nature of the claims asserted in the underlying action, (2) what defenses to coverage are asserted by the insurers, and to what extent, if at all, are they logically related to the liability issues raised in the underlying action, (3) what factual questions have to be resolved in order to sustain or defeat such defenses, (4) what is the likely nature of the available evidence, (5) to what extent, if at all, will [the policyholder] suffer prejudice by the enforced discovery of the evidence which tends to support or defeat its claim of coverage or the defenses raised by the insurers and (6) to what extent, if at all, will a confidentiality order realistically protect [the policyholder] from prejudicial disclosure." (Haskel, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 963, 980.)

Do your recent emails honor this quality of analysis?

"[W]hether in the insurer-insured context or otherwise, the attorney who undertakes to represent parties with divergent interests owes the 'highest duty' to each to make a full disclosure of all facts and circumstances which are necessary to enable the parties to make a fully informed decision regarding the subject matter of litigation, including the areas of potential conflict and the possibility and desirability of seeking independent legal advice." (Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 688, 716)

Am I getting "independent legal advice" from you? If not, will Hanover provide me with such advice?