Fish v. Rutan & Tucker
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.
Comments on Fish v. Rutan & Tucker