Fish v. Rutan & Tucker
Filed 10/5/10 Fish v. Rutan & Tucker CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
ROBERT D. FISH,
Cross-complainant and Appellant,
v.
RUTAN & TUCKER LLP,
Cross-defendant and Respondent.
G042057
(Super. Ct.
No. 07CC07941)
O P I N I O
N
Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of Orange
County, William M. Monroe, Judge. Affirmed.
Chamberlin Keaster &
Brockman, Robert W. Keaster, and Michael A. Miller for Cross-complainant and
Appellant.
Jasper & Jasper,
Stuart P. Jasper for Cross-defendant and Respondent.
*
* *
Who must pay for the
defense of a lawsuit alleging breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud, and malpractice against an attorney and his former
law firm (which self insured against the first $500,000 of any professional
liability claim and defense thereof)â€
| Description | Who must pay for the defense of a lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and malpractice against an attorney and his former law firm (which self insured against the first $500,000 of any professional liability claim and defense thereof)? Here, the trial court found: (1) appellant Robert D. Fish (Fish), a former partner at respondent Rutan and Tucker LLP (Rutan), was not entitled to indemnification from Rutan for Fish's defense costs; and (2) Fish was obligated to indemnify Rutan for its defense costs. There is substantial evidence supporting the court's factual finding that Fish engaged in willful misconduct in connection with the claims, thereby obligating Fish under the Rutan partnership agreement to indemnify Rutan. Court affirm the judgment. |
| Rating |
