. . .Under Limited “Padded Bill” Circumstances.
We do commend that any insurance or tort practitioners read Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. J.R. Marketing, LLC, Case No. S211645 (Cal. Supreme Court Aug. 10, 2015) (published) given that it does allow insurers to directly pursue Cumis counsel for restitution based discovery for padded bills (likely counsel fees). This is a fairly narrow ruling, but if readers think it extends beyond the narrow facts and circumstances of this particular case, we invite any and all commentary on this interesting decision.
Comments