 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Finley v. Home Insurance Company12/30/1998
stated that:
"With respect to Count V, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement between Plaintiffs Finley and Defendant HIGA. Therefore, the motion is denied as to Count V."
"With respect to Count VI, the Court finds that the Cumis doctrine is not recognized in Hawaii. Defendant HIGA, as the insurer, is not obligated to pay for attorneys' fees for independent counsel or personal counsel hired by Plaintiffs Finley. Accordingly, the Motion is granted as to Count VI."
"With respect to Count VII, the Court finds that Hawaii Revised Statutes, [ยง ] 431:16-116 clearly and unambiguously provides that there shall be no liability on the part of HIGA for any action taken by HIGA in the performance of its powers and duties. Therefore, the motion is granted as to count VII."
On August 19, 1996, HIGA and the Finleys entered into a written release and indemnity agreement wherein HIGA paid the Finleys $100,000 in full satisfaction of any and all obligations related to the underlying action. However, this release specifically excluded "the rights and claims, if any, of [the Finleys] for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the [Aaron] defendants named in the underlying lawsuit in the defense of said underlying lawsuit[.]" The parties agree that this agreement rendered Count V of the Finleys' complaint moot.
On October 30, 1996, HIGA filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs seeking $35,292.50 in fees and costs. On December 16, 1996, the circuit court entered an order stating that " he Court finds reasonable attorneys' fees to be $11,764.00 and taxable costs to be $264.00 for a total of $12,028.00."
On October 22, 1996, the circuit court granted the Finleys' motion for certification pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 54(b). On July 2, 1997, the circuit court entered an amended final judgment in favor of HIGA and against the Finleys on all claims concerning HIGA contained in the Finleys' complaint. On July 15, 1997, the Finleys filed their notice of appeal of the amended final judgment. On appeal, the Finleys argue that the circuit court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of HIGA on Count VI. The Finleys argue that the Cumis doctrine should be recognized in Hawaii and that the recognition of this doctrine would impose liability on HIGA for reimbursement of the attorneys' fees incurred by Bernstein. On July 29, 1997, HIGA filed a cross-appeal. In its cross-appeal, HIGA claims that the circuit court erred in reducing its request for attorneys' fees and costs.
This appeal was assigned to the ICA. On August 28, 1998, the ICA issued an opinion vacating the circuit court's grant of summary judgment on count VI (the ICA's opinion). In its opinion, the ICA stated that:
"The sole issue on appeal is whether an insurer, who provides a defense under a reservation of rights, is also required to pay for independent counsel for an insured. We conclude that where a conflict of interest arises between an insurer and an insured, because the insurer has reserved its right to assert noncoverage at a later date, the insurer is required to pay for independent counsel for the insured." ICA's opinion at 7 (footnote omitted).
Specifically, the ICA held that "a reservation of rights can create a conflict of interest if "the insurer's reservation of rights on the ground of noncoverage based on the nature of the insured's conduct, which as developed at trial would affect the determination as to coverage." When such a conflict of interest exists, the insurer is obligated to either obtain informed consent of the insured to the confl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Hawaii Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|