This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Modification: Nede Mgmt. Inc. v. Aspen American Insurance Co.

Ruling by

Sam Ohta

Lower Court

Los Angeles County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Patricia D. Nieto
Because plaintiffs failed to allege that an actual conflict of interest existed between them and their insurer-appointed counsel, plaintiffs were not entitled to independent counsel.



Court

California Courts of Appeal 2DCA/8

Cite as

2021 DJDAR 10560

Published

Oct. 7, 2021

Filing Date

Oct. 5, 2021

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Affirmed as Modified

Case Fully Briefed

Apr. 9, 2021

Oral Argument

Jun. 29, 2021


NEDE MGMT., INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 

No. B307470

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV05442)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Eight

Filed October 5, 2021

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

[No change in the judgment]

 

IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed in the above-captioned matter on September 20, 2021, be modified as follows:

 

1. On page 3, last paragraph, the second sentence beginning with "They believed . . ." is deleted and replaced with:

 

"They believed these various allegations, if proven, created a conflict of interest between them and Aspen that required Aspen to provide them independent counsel pursuant to section 2860."

 

2. On page 15, line 7, the sentence beginning with "Fields' handling of the case . . ." is deleted and replaced with:

 

"Fields' handling of the case---and the Darwish family's apparent dissatisfaction with it---is beside the point, unless they can show Fields was serving Aspen and D&H's separate and conflicting interests to their detriment."

 

3. On page 15, line 4 of the last paragraph, the following is added to the beginning of the sentence, so that it now reads:

 

"If Fields had entertained such a view, it is part of an attorney's honest assessment about the merits of a case."

 

This modification effects no change in the judgment.

 

 

STRATTON, Acting P. J.

WILEY, J.

OHTA, J.*

 

 

 

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

#278188

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390