9 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,147 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,112 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Society, Inc.
162 Cal.App.3d 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) Cited 245 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that an insurance company must hire an independent attorney to represent its insured when the carrier reserves the right to deny coverage at a later date
James 3 Corp. v. Truck Ins. Exchange
91 Cal.App.4th 1093 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 63 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “there is nothing in the policy that contractually obligates [the insurer] to fund and prosecute an insured's affirmative relief counterclaims or cross-complaints.”
Federal Insurance v. MBL, Inc.
219 Cal.App.4th 29 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) Cited 19 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding no conflict where insurer retained different law firms to defend insureds, assigned different claims adjusters, and ensured the adjusters did not discuss the claims or access each other's files
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen
131 Nev. Adv. Op. 74 (Nev. 2015) Cited 15 times 3 Legal Analyses
Noting that the court has “approvingly cited opinions holding that ‘joint representation is permissible as long as any conflict remains speculative'” (quoting Nev. Yellow Cab. Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 152 P.3d 737, 742 (Nev. 2007))
Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich v. Vigilant Ins. Co.
114 Cal.App.4th 1185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 23 times
Concluding that Cumis defense expenses are not equivalent to Cumis attorney's fees for the purposes of § 2860's arbitration requirement
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,074 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2860 - Duty of insurer to provide independent counsel to insured
Cal. Civ. Code § 2860 Cited 274 times 24 Legal Analyses
Implementing Cumis rule

Ooida Risk Retention Group v. Bourdeaux, et al

9 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that an insurance company must hire an independent attorney to represent its insured when the carrier reserves the right to deny coverage at a later date

Holding that “there is nothing in the policy that contractually obligates [the insurer] to fund and prosecute an insured's affirmative relief counterclaims or cross-complaints.”

Finding no conflict where insurer retained different law firms to defend insureds, assigned different claims adjusters, and ensured the adjusters did not discuss the claims or access each other's files

Noting that the court has “approvingly cited opinions holding that ‘joint representation is permissible as long as any conflict remains speculative'” (quoting Nev. Yellow Cab. Corp. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 152 P.3d 737, 742 (Nev. 2007))

Concluding that Cumis defense expenses are not equivalent to Cumis attorney's fees for the purposes of § 2860's arbitration requirement

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Implementing Cumis rule