Insurance
Jun. 7, 2008
Duty Bound?
A recent state Supreme Court ruling articulated some guidelines that might inhibit the expansion of the breach of fiduciary duty tort.
Rex Heeseman
JAMS
555 W 5th St Fl 32
Los Angeles , CA 90013-1055
Phone: (213) 253-9772
Fax: (213) 620-0100
Email: rheeseman@jamsdar.com
Stanford Univ Law School
Rex Heeseman retired from the Los Angeles Count Superior Court bench in 2014. He is at JAMS, Los Angeles. Besides speaking at various MCLE programs, he co-authors The Rutter Group's practice guide on "Insurance Litigation." From 2002 to 2015, he was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School.
By Rex Heeseman
This article appears on Page 7
The "breach of fiduciary duty" tort is interesting and unique. For instance, policyholder versus insurer has several tort options, but that litigation battleground has rejected this tort. See Vu v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 26 Cal.4th 1142 (2001) (notwithstanding imposition of fiduciary-like duties upon insurers).
...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In