holding that the *1157 insurer was liable for the insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs where the attorney testified that he had incurred charges in the matter and billed the insured, even though the attorney had not yet been paid
How later courts described this case
- holding that the *1157 insurer was liable for the insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs where the attorney testified that he had incurred charges in the matter and billed the insured, even though the attorney had not yet been paid
- holding that the insurer was liable for the insured’s attorneys’ fees and costs where the attorney testified that he had incurred charges in the matter and billed the insured, even though the attorney had not yet been paid
- declaring that “[i]f there be uncertainty as to the nature or extent of the services reasonably to be rendered by counsel engaged by the insured, that uncertainty must be resolved against defendant insurer”; also citing with approval the following passage from Speegle v. Board of Fire Underwriters, 29 Cal.2d 34, 46, 172 P.2d 867 (1946): “ ‘[T]he wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty which his own wrong has created.’ ”
- noting that “ ‘An insurer’s unwarranted refusal to defend a suit against the insured has been held to relieve the latter from his contract obligation to leave the management of such suits to the insurer, and to justify him in defending the action on his own account.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPENCE, J.
I dissent.
My views are in accord with those expressed in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal written by Mr. Justice Ash-burn. (Ar enson v. National Auto. & Cas. Co., (Cal.App.) 302 P.2d 877 .) I would therefore modify and affirm the judgment.