A friend who works in-house at a large property/casualty carrier called me about an interesting questionhis employers wanted him to take a position in a matter which he thought might be adverse to his client, the employer’s insured. In response to a question concerning loyalty to the client, the carrier’s national counsel told him that he had a duty to the carrier who was also his client. Wait, what?
"Well, the discussion went, "Connecticut is a dual-client state and a lawyer being paid by an insurance carrier has two clients." I pointed out to him that there is a Connecticut Bar Association ethics opinion, No. 92-07, that say differently, as well as some Connecticut Supreme Court law, including the cases of Metropolitan Life v. Aetna and Higgins v. Karp. "Well," he replied, "national counsel seem pretty sure of themselves. Maybe they know something you don’t."
