Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross-Complainant and Appellant v. J.r. Marketing, L.L.C., et a — Liu, J…

Summary

Justice Liu concurred in the court’s decision permitting Hartford to pursue reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel for fees that were objectively unreasonable, unnecessary, and not incurred for the insured’s benefit. The concurrence emphasized that Hartford’s breach of its defense obligations and loss of statutory oversight made this case materially different from the ordinary Cumis relationship, and argued that fees should be presumed to have primarily benefited the insured. Justice Liu further explained that Hartford should bear the burden of overcoming that presumption by showing that counsel misled or acted without authorization from the insured.