Fourth District, Division 1 Reiterates Duty In Contentious Client-Cumis Counsel Dispute.
In a decision that put an end to a long-standing dispute between a client and his Cumis counsel, the Fourth District, Division 1 reminds us that insurers are only responsible to pay reasonable and necessary defense costs to retained Cumis counsel. The decision so acknowledging is Behnke v. State Farm General Insurance Co., Case No. D056898 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 31, 2011 unpublished), citing in support such case law and statutory provisions as San Diego Fed. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc’y, 162 Cal.App.3d 358, 375 (1984), Civil Code section 2860(c), and Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co., 17 Cal.4th 38, 60 (1997).