Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitdamagesattorneyliabilitymotiontrust
attorneymotion

Related Cases

Rosenthal, Levy & Simon, P.A. v. Scott, 17 So.3d 872, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D1875
View Case »
Aloy v. Mash, 38 Cal.3d 413, 696 P.2d 656, 212 Cal.Rptr. 162, 53 USLW 2497, 6 Employee Benefits Cas. 1436
View Case »
Guerrant v. Roth, 334 Ill.App.3d 259, 777 N.E.2d 499, 267 Ill.Dec. 696
View Case »
Spencer v. Barber, 299 P.3d 388, 2013 -NMSC- 010
View Case »
Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 251 A.D.2d 35, 675 N.Y.S.2d 14
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 105 F.Supp.3d 1100

Facts

The United States Navy operated a base at Mare Island in Vallejo, California from 1852 until 1996, during which time the land became contaminated. After the base closed, the Navy conveyed the land to the City of Vallejo, which then transferred a portion to LMI, who contracted with CCI to investigate and clean up the pollution. The contract included funding from the Navy for three environmental insurance policies issued by Steadfast, two of which are at issue in this lawsuit, as LMI alleges Steadfast has caused it damages by refusing to pay claims under the Environmental Liability Insurance policy.

The United States Navy operated a base at Mare Island in Vallejo, California from 1852 until 1996, during which time the land became contaminated.

Issue

Whether Steadfast's counsel should be disqualified due to a conflict of interest arising from the representation of both Steadfast and its corporate parent, CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd. (CH2M), which is also the parent of CCI.

Whether Steadfast's counsel should be disqualified due to a conflict of interest arising from the representation of both Steadfast and its corporate parent, CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd. (CH2M), which is also the parent of CCI.

Rule

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 prohibits an attorney from representing multiple clients in a matter where their interests conflict without informed written consent from each client.

California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 prohibits an attorney from representing multiple clients in a matter where their interests conflict without informed written consent from each client.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between Steadfast, CH2M, and CCI, determining that they were unified clients for the purposes of assessing conflicts of interest. The court found that the advance waiver of conflicts was unenforceable due to insufficient disclosure and that CCI's delay in moving for disqualification did not constitute extreme prejudice. The court emphasized the importance of preserving public trust in the integrity of the legal process.

The court analyzed the relationship between Steadfast, CH2M, and CCI, determining that they were unified clients for the purposes of assessing conflicts of interest.

Conclusion

The court granted CCI's motion to disqualify Steadfast's counsel, concluding that the representation created a conflict of interest that could not be resolved through the advance waiver.

The court granted CCI's motion to disqualify Steadfast's counsel, concluding that the representation created a conflict of interest that could not be resolved through the advance waiver.

Who won?

CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc. (CCI) prevailed in the motion to disqualify Steadfast's counsel due to the established conflict of interest and the lack of enforceable consent.

CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc. (CCI) prevailed in the motion to disqualify Steadfast's counsel due to the established conflict of interest and the lack of enforceable consent.

You must be