From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co.
California Court of Appeals
6 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (1992)
Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck) (plaintiff) defended an insured in asbestos-related litigation that cost Truck more than $17 million in legal fees. Truck sued Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) and other insurers (defendants) for contribution and indemnity. When the court disqualified the law firm that represented Truck, Truck asked Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May (Crosby) to take over the representation. However, Crosby had already been representing Fireman’s Fund Credit Union (FFCU), an FFIC affiliate, in two wrongful-termination suits for several months. Crosby ran a computerized conflicts check, discovered the conflict, and asked FFIC to consent to the adverse representation. In the alternative, Crosby offered to withdraw from representing FFCU, help FFCU transition to new counsel, and waive its fees in the wrongful-termination cases. FFIC refused to consent and wanted Crosby to continue representing FFCU in the wrongful-termination cases. Crosby nonetheless accepted representation of Truck and moved to withdraw from representing FFCU. Crosby notified the court that FFCU had retained substitute counsel, transferred the case files, and transitioned the matters to new counsel. Meanwhile, FFIC moved to disqualify Crosby from representing Truck, arguing the automatic-disqualification standard for conflicts between current clients applied. Crosby countered that FFIC was a former client, meaning the court could disqualify Crosby only if the two matters were substantially related, giving Crosby access to confidential information that would be helpful to Truck in the asbestos cases. Truck argued Crosby had no confidential information useable against FFIC because the matters were not connected. The trial court applied the automatic-disqualification rule used in concurrent-representation cases and disqualified Crosby. Truck appealed, arguing the court applied the wrong standard.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Reardon, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 556,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 556,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.