Verified Complaint – Declaratory Relief

LEGEND

To do a “search and replace” on a wordprocessor for the following terms and replace them with the correct names for the client’s case.

&Blank& means that information unique to a particular case needs to be provided.

&DependentCounsel& means counsel who was selected by and represents the interests of the liability insurance company.

&Date& means that a unique date needs to be provided.

&InsCo& means the client’s insurance company.

&Plaintiff& means the plaintiff who sued the defendant/policyholder/client.

&ClmAgt& means the insurer’s claims agent.

&Client& means the defendant/policyholder/client.

&IndependentCounsel& means the client’s independent counsel.

 

Advantages of a verified complaint are many.

• Both the insurer and dependent counsel must state their respective positions under oath and may be foreclosed from later taking different positions.

•  Both the insurer and dependent counsel may be embarrassed if they deny the existence of well established duties.

• It may become unnecessary to conduct much discovery while the plaintiff’s lawsuit is still pending that might risk disclosure of confidential information to the plaintiff.

• Verified responses may support a series of motions for summary adjudication. To the extent that duties are denied, summary adjudication will be appropriate as to issues of duty. To the extent that duties are admitted, the admissions may support legal conclusions.

 

&IndependentCounsel&, Bar #_

Address

TELEPHONE:

FACSIMILE:

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

&Client&

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF &Blank&

&Client&

Plaintiff,

vs.

&InsCo&, &DependentCounsel& AND DOES 1-250,

Defendants.

CASE NO.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

for Declaratory Relief

Plaintiff, &Client& alleges against Defendants and each of them as follows:

Introduction

  1. &Client& is a defendant in a pending &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit. &InsCo& issued a policy of liability insurance to &Client&. &Client& notified &InsCo& of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit and requested a defense and indemnification. &InsCo& initially denied all coverage refusing to defend or indemnify, but later agreed to defend &Client& in a &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit under a reservation of “all” of its rights to deny coverage to &Client& for any judgment. &Client& is also a client of &DependentCounsel& hired by &InsCo& to defend &Client& as a defendant in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  2. &InsCo&’s reservation of “all” rights has created conflicts of interest between the &Client& and &InsCo& which requires &InsCo& to provide independent “Cumis” counsel to defend the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit. The reservation of “all” rights has simultaneously created conflicts of interest between the &Client& and &DependentCounsel&, which requires &DependentCounsel& to comply with Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310.
  3. This action is based on six broad principles. First, a policyholder sued as a defendant has the initial right to defend itself in litigation. Second a liability insurer has a contractual right to control the policyholder’s defense on condition that the insurer agrees to indemnify against an adverse judgment against the policyholder. Third, if the insurer reserves rights to deny indemnity coverage, its contractual right to control the policyholder’s defense is limited to situations where the reservation of rights is based on coverage disputes which have nothing to do with the issues being litigated in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit. Fourth, where the insurer reserves rights to deny indemnity coverage on grounds that are related to any issue being litigated in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit, the insurer must provide independent counsel to represent the policyholder. Fifth, insurance defense counsel must comply with Rule 3-310 before accepting or continuing representation of an insured because the insurer reserved rights to deny indemnity coverage on a ground which is related to the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit. Sixth, the insurer breaches its duty to defend the insured when it fails to provide independent counsel to represent the insured.

The Parties

  1. &Client& is a resident of the State of California, County of &Blank&.
  2. On information and belief &Client& alleges that defendant, &InsCo& is a corporation authorized to do business in the State of California and was and is authorized by the California Insurance Commissioner to transact and is transacting business in this state as an insurer.
  3. On information and belief &Client& alleges that defendant, &DependentCounsel& is and was a law firm consisting of attorneys licensed to practice law in and residing in the State of California, County of &Blank&.
  4. &Client& is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 250 and therefore sue such defendants by such fictitious names. On information and belief &Client& alleges that Does 1 through 50 are authorized by the California Insurance Commissioner to transact and are transacting business in this state as insurers. Hereinafter, &InsCo& and Does 1 through 50 are referred to as “&InsCo&”. On information and belief &Client& alleges that Does 51 through 250 are attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of California. Hereinafter, &DependentCounsel&, and Does 51 through 250 are referred to as “&DependentCounsel&”. &Client& will amend this verified complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the Doe defendants when they have been identified. On information and belief &Client& alleges that each defendant is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged.
  5. &Client& is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times material hereto, each defendant acted as an agent, duly authorized, for and on behalf of each other defendant within the course and scope of such agency and authority.

Venue

  1. This action is brought in &Blank& Superior Court because &Client& and &DependentCounsel& are citizens of the State of California. The professional services rendered by &DependentCounsel& to &Client& were to be performed in &Blank& County. The policy contract sued upon in this action was to be performed in &Blank& County.

The &InsCo& Policy

  1. 10.       &InsCo& issued to &Client& a written Commercial General Liability Policy bearing Policy Number &Blank& with effective &Date&s of &Blank& to &Blank& (the Policy). Attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a portion of the Policy. The Policy states in part:

“We will pay those sums that the Insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage. . . . We will have the right and duty to defend the Insured against any suit seeking those damages.”

  1. &InsCo& is licensed to issue insurance policies in the State of California or otherwise transacts the business of insurance in the State of California as an insurer.
  2. &InsCo& issued the Policy to &Client&.
  3. &Client& is an insured under the Policy.
  4. The Policy states in part that &InsCo& “will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’.”
  5. The Policy states in part that &InsCo& “will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘personal injury’ and ‘advertising injury’.”

The &Plaintiff&’s Lawsuit

  1. &Plaintiff& filed a complaint against &Client& on or about &Date&. &Plaintiff& alleges that &Client& caused Property damage, Bodily injury, Personal injury, and Advertising injury to &Plaintiff&, for which &Plaintiff& seeks damages from &Client&. A true and correct copy of the complaint in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
  2. A comparison of the allegations of the complaint in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit and the language of the Policy demonstrates the potential for coverage for &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  3. The provisions of the Policy imposed upon &InsCo& a duty to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.

&InsCo&’s Investigation

  1. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& conducted no investigation regarding &Client&’s request for a defense of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.

&InsCo&’s Denial of Coverage

  1. On &Date&, &Client& notified &InsCo& of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  2. By letter dated, &Date&, &InsCo& denied all coverage. A true and correct copy of the denial letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
  3. 22.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that in denying the claim by &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit, &InsCo& did not provide to &Client& a written statement listing all bases for such denial and the factual and legal bases for each reason given for such denial then within &InsCo&’s knowledge.

&InsCo&’s Reservation of Rights

  1. On &Date&, &InsCo& agreed to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit under a broad reservation of rights that reserved “all” of &InsCo&’s rights to deny indemnity coverage and waived no bases to deny coverage.
  2. A true and correct copy of &InsCo&’s reservation of rights letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. &InsCo&’s reservation of rights includes statements that:

•     &Blank&

  1. &InsCo& has not waived any grounds upon which it may later deny coverage to &Client&.
  2. 26.      &InsCo&’s reservation of rights created a duty on the part of &InsCo& to provide independent counsel to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  3. 27.      &InsCo& could be affected substantially by the resolution of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  4. &InsCo& has reserved the right to recover reimbursement of costs of defense paid to &DependentCounsel&.

&InsCo&’s Duties

  1. 29.      &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to defend immediately and entirely.
  2. 30.      &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to provide ethical defense counsel.
  3. 31.      &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to determine objectively whether any conflict of interest exists between &InsCo& and &Client&.
  4. 32.      &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to initiate disclosure to &Client& of any conflict of interest exists between &InsCo& and &Client&.
  5. 33.      &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to initiate an offer to provide independent counsel to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  6. 34.      &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to promptly pay independent counsel to defend &Client& on the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  7. 35.      &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to pay those sums that &Client& becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage, unless excluded.

&InsCo& Hired &DependentCounsel&

  1. &InsCo& hired &DependentCounsel& to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  2. 37.      &InsCo& hired &DependentCounsel& to protect the interests of &InsCo& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  3. 38.      &Client& is a client of &DependentCounsel&.
  4. &InsCo&’s reservation of rights created potential conflicts of interest between &InsCo& and &Client& that required &DependentCounsel& to comply with Rule 3-310.
  5. 40.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that &DependentCounsel& has represented &InsCo& as a party in matter(s) separate from the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  6. 41.      &InsCo& has a financial relationship with &DependentCounsel&.
  7. 42.      The outcome of a coverage issue raised by &InsCo&’s reservation of rights can be controlled by &DependentCounsel&’s conduct of &Client&’s defense of &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  8. 43.      &DependentCounsel& representation of &Client& is less effective by reason of &DependentCounsel& representation of &InsCo&’s interests.
  9. 44.      &InsCo& did not request that &DependentCounsel& comply with Rule 3-310 in representing &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  10. 45.      &DependentCounsel& has not made written disclosure to &Client& of the relevant circumstances and of the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences of representation of &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit by &DependentCounsel&.
  11. 46.      &DependentCounsel& has not obtained &Client&’s informed written consent for &DependentCounsel& to represent &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  12. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& has interfered with &DependentCounsel&’s independence of professional judgment.
  13. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& has interfered with &DependentCounsel&’s client-lawyer relationship with &Client&.
  14. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &DependentCounsel& have communicated &Client&’s confidential information to &InsCo&.
  15. 50.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& has paid compensation to &DependentCounsel& to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  16. 51.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that &DependentCounsel& has accepted compensation from &InsCo& to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  17. &DependentCounsel& have failed to obtain the informed written consent of &Client& to accept compensation from &InsCo& for representing &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  18. &Client& withheld consent for &DependentCounsel& to represent &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  19. &Client& requested that &DependentCounsel& withdraw from representation in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  20. &DependentCounsel& did not voluntarily withdraw from representation in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit as requested by &Client&.
  21. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &DependentCounsel& refused to withdraw at the instruction of &InsCo&.
  22. &Client& was required to file a motion to disqualify &DependentCounsel&.
  23. &Client& incurred attorneys fees to prepare, file and argue the motion to disqualify &DependentCounsel&.
  24. &DependentCounsel& breached fiduciary duties to &Client&, which breaches have caused prejudice and damage to &Client&.

&DependentCounsel& Duties

  1. &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty of competence.
  2. &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty of full disclosure.
  3. 62.             &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty of confidentiality.
  4. 63.             &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty of undivided loyalty.
  5. &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty to analyze potential conflicts of interest.
  6. &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty to respond to inquiry by &Client&.
  7. &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty to communicate settlement opportunities.
  8. &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty to follow the lawful directions of &Client&.
  9. &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty to determine whether &InsCo& reserved any rights to deny coverage to &Client&.
  10. &DependentCounsel& owes to &Client& a duty to determine whether &InsCo&’s reservation of rights potentially creates any conflict of interest between &InsCo& and &Client&.
  11. 70.      &DependentCounsel& has the duty to obtain &Client&’s informed written consent to represent &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit
  12. 71.      If &Client& must reimburse costs of defense to &InsCo&, &DependentCounsel& has the duty to disgorge to &Client& all costs of defense accepted by &DependentCounsel& from &InsCo& in volation of Rule 3-310(F).

&DependentCounsel&’s Failure to Resolve Conflicts

  1. [Detail all false assertions made by &DependentCounsel& set forth in Pitches and Fallacies.]
  2. On &Date&, &Client& requested that &DependentCounsel& complete and return an Ethical Questionnaire. &DependentCounsel& did not respond.

&InsCo& Refused to Pay &IndependentCounsel&

  1. &Client& hired &IndependentCounsel& to defend the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit and incurred costs of defense incurred in good faith, and in the exercise of a reasonable discretion.
  2. &Client& caused invoices of &IndependentCounsel& to be submitted to &InsCo& for payment.
  3. &InsCo& failed to pay invoices of &IndependentCounsel&.
  4. &InsCo&’s failure to pay invoices of &IndependentCounsel& interfered with &Client&’s right to conduct its own defense of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.

&InsCo& Agreed to Pay Pursuant to Civil Code §2860

  1. On &Date&, &InsCo& agreed to pay &Client& for costs of defense incurred through &IndependentCounsel& pursuant to Civil Code §2860.
  2. &InsCo& has a duty to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit at all times from &Date& until the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit is finally concluded.
  3. &InsCo& has a duty to pay the costs of defense of &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit incurred in good faith, and in the exercise of a reasonable discretion from &Date& to &Date&.
  4. &InsCo&’s duty to pay the costs of defense of &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit at a rate that is not limited by Civil Code §2860 from &Date& to [date of first payment of independent counsel’s invoices].
  5. &InsCo&’s duty to pay the costs of defense of &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit is not limited by Civil Code §2860 at all from &Date& until the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit is finally concluded.

&InsCo&’s Claims Handling Practices

  1. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &ClmAgt& is a claims agent for &InsCo& regarding the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  2. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& authorized &ClmAgt& to handle of all aspects of the claims asserted by &Client& regarding the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  3. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& authorized &ClmAgt& to handle of all aspects of the claims asserted by &Plaintiff& regarding the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  4. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& ratified all aspects of &ClmAgt&’s handling of claims regarding the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  5. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& compensates &ClmAgt&, at least in part, on minimizing Claim Expense.
  6. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& did not adopted written standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims.
  7. On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& did not communicate to &ClmAgt& written standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims.
  8. 90.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& has not provided to &Client& a written statement listing all bases for decision to not then provide a defense of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to its insureds and the factual and legal bases for each reason given for such decision then within &InsCo&’s knowledge.
  9. 91.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that on &Date&, &InsCo& was conscious that the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit raised disputed issues of fact or law in common with disputed issues of fact or law raised by &InsCo&’s reservation of rights.
  10. 92.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that during the pendency of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit, &InsCo& was conscious that &DependentCounsel& had not complied with Rule 3-310 in representing &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.
  11. 93.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that in handling or all aspects of the claim asserted by &Client& regarding the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit, &InsCo& never considered the advice of its counsel.
  12. 94.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that during the pendency of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit &InsCo& knowingly failed to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims.
  13. 95.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that during the pendency of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit &InsCo& knowingly failed to begin any necessary investigation of the claim within 15 days.
  14. 96.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that during the pendency of the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit &InsCo& knowingly failed to adopt and communicate to all its claims agents written standards for the prompt investigation and processing of claims.
  15. 97.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& knowingly failed to maintain a claims files regarding the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit containing all documents, notes and work papers in such detail that pertinent events and dates by &InsCo& can be determined.
  16. 98.      On information and belief &Client& alleges that &InsCo& has no written materials regarding its standards for processing claims.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

                                 (Declaratory Relief Against &InsCo& and Does 1-50)

  1. &Client& realleges foregoing paragraphs 1 through &Blank& and incorporate them herein by reference.
  2. Many present and actual controversies exist between the &Client& and &InsCo& regarding &InsCo&’s duties to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit. &Client& has no adequate remedy at law to resolve these controversies.
  3. &Client& seeks declarations from this court in &Client&’s favor and against &InsCo& that the rights and duties of the parties be adjudged by the court as follows:

A. For a declaration that the provisions of the Policy imposed upon &InsCo& a duty to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.

B. For a declaration that &InsCo&’s reservation of rights created a duty on the part of &InsCo& to provide independent counsel to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.

C. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to defend immediately and entirely from &Date& until the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit is finally concluded.

D. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to provide ethical defense counsel.

E. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to determine objectively whether any conflict of interest exists between &InsCo& and &Client&.

F. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to initiate disclosure to &Client& of any conflict of interest exists between &InsCo& and &Client&.

G. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to initiate an offer to provide independent counsel to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.

H. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to promptly pay independent counsel to defend &Client& on the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.

I. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to pay those sums that &Client& becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage, unless excluded.

J. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to pay the costs of defense incurred in good faith, and in the exercise of a reasonable discretion from &Date& to &Date&.

K. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to pay the costs of defense at a rate that is not limited by Civil Code §2860 from &Date& to [Date of first payment of independent counsel’s invoices].

L. For a declaration that &InsCo& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to pay the costs of defense that is not limited by Civil Code §2860 at all from &Date& until the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit is finally concluded.

M. For a declaration that &InsCo& may not recover Buss reimbursement from &Client& for costs of defense paid to &DependentCounsel& in violation of Rule 3-310(F);

N. For a declaration that &InsCo& has breached its contractual duty to defend &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit.

O. For a declaration that wholly apart from the express terms of the Policy, the Policy contains an implied-in-law covenant that &InsCo& will act in good faith and deal fairly with &Client& and will do nothing to interfere with the rights of &Client& to receive the full benefits of the Policy.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

                    (Declaratory Relief Against &DependentCounsel& and Does 51-250)

  1. &Client& realleges foregoing paragraphs 1 through &Blank& and incorporates them herein by reference.
  2. Many present and actual controversies exist between the &Client& and &DependentCounsel& regarding duties to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit. &Client& has no adequate remedy at law to resolve these controversies.
    1. &Client& seeks declarations from this court in &Client&’s favor and against &DependentCounsel& that the rights and duties of the parties be adjudged by the court as follows:            A. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit of competence.

B. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit of full disclosure.

C. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit of confidentiality.

D. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit of undivided loyalty.

E. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to analyze potential conflicts of interest.

F. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to respond to inquiry by &Client&.

G. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit communicate settlement opportunities.

H. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to follow the lawful directions of &Client&.

I. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to determine whether &InsCo& reserved any rights to deny coverage to &Client&.

J. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to determine whether &InsCo&’s reservation of rights potentially creates any conflict of interest between &InsCo& and &Client&.

K. For a declaration that &DependentCounsel& has a duty to &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit to obtain &Client&’s informed written consent to represent &Client& in the &Plaintiff&’s lawsuit

L. For a declaration that if &Client& must reimburse costs of defense to &InsCo&, &DependentCounsel& has the duty to disgorge to &Client& all costs of defense accepted by &DependentCounsel& from &InsCo& involation of Rule 3-310(F).

WHEREFORE, &Client& pray for judgment as to defendants &InsCo& and Does 56 through 100, judgment as follows:

1.   For declarations of the parties respective rights and obligations;

2.   For declarations of the parties respective rights and obligations as alleged above;

3.   For general damages in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court;

4.   For compensatory damages according to proof at the time of trial;

5.   For interest at the legal rate on amounts due to &Client&;

6.   For costs of suit herein;

7.   For attorneys’ fees incurred herein;

8.   For punitive damages, according to proof; and

9.   For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

&Client& pray for judgment as to defendants &DependentCounsel& and Does 56 through 100, judgment as follows:

10. For declarations of the parties respective rights and obligations under the circumstances;

11. For declarations of the parties respective rights and obligations as alleged above;

12. For general damages in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court;

13. For compensatory damages according to proof at the time of trial;

14. For interest at the legal rate on amounts due to &Client&;

15. For costs of suit herein;

16. For attorneys’ fees incurred herein;

17. For punitive damages, according to proof; and

18. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Dated: &Blank&

 

By:______________________________

 &IndependentCounsel&

Attorneys for &Client&

VERIFICATION

BY &Client&

      I am the plaintiff on the Verified Complaint, of which this Verification is a part. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §446, I state that the allegations set forth in the Verified Complaint are true of my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this &Date&, at &Blank&, California.

________________________

&Client&
Please enter your email address in order to view this page.
Your email address will not be sold to or shared with third parties.
DutytoDefend.com