Solicitor-client privilege is an important element in the defence of claims or prosecutions, but it can cause problems if the tripartite relationship exists between the insured, the insurer and the designated lawyer. Before exchanging information and documents between these parties, it is of the utmost importance to confirm the law in the jurisdiction concerned and to confirm whether the tripartite relationship and the applicability of solicitor-client privilege are recognized. If this is not the case, alternative means should be considered to share information with the insurer. The tripartite report concerns the insurer, its insured and the legal assistance retained by the insurer to represent the insured in order to claim a claim. The underlying approach is that these three parties cooperate in a coalition to reach a solution favourable to the contentious requirement, beneficial to both parties. Their interests are directed to the extent that it is in the interests of the insured and the insurer that the right be settled as quickly and as little as possible, whether in terms of defence costs or damages. Most abuse policies give the insurer the right to control the defence, including the selection of defence counsel. In some cases, the legal advisor already has a relationship with the insurer, in others with the insured. Regardless of whether or not such a prior relationship exists, a solicitor-client relationship is always established between the designated lawyer and the insured, the insured being bound by a duty of non-sharing on the part of the lawyer.
This relationship is generally limited to the defence of a particular right, but for insurance policyholders, representation may extend to other issues, including other claims or litigation. The relationship between the insurer and the designated advocate is not universally recognized. The majority of jurisdictions, more than 35 states, recognize that the insurer`s lawyer to represent the insured has two clients – the insurer and the insured. Recognition of dual representation increases the prospect of better defence, as policyholders, insurers and advisors can more easily exchange information, analyze problems more accurately and develop strategies to develop the best possible defense. Defence counsel may use the information provided by the insured as well as the insurer`s long experience in conducting the trial. Subsequently, the applicants submitted a written claim for settlement, which was to remain open until the date of oral proceedings on the policyholder`s summary application for judgment. At the time of the claim, most of the other defendants (not insured by home compensation) had surrendered their limits. The insured repeatedly asked his insurer and his lawyer to limit the insurance policy of the applicants` lawyer. The insured has repeatedly expressed concern about exposure to a judgment that exceeds insurance limits. In a letter to defence counsel, the insured specifically stated: « We are your client.
It is not insurance. 17 It is apparent from the insurer`s file reports that defence counsel has always advised him to wait until the policyholder`s summary assessment request is decided before verifying whether he is issuing his limits, despite the insured`s requests to the contrary. Wendy Keenan focuses her practice on the complex issues of professional liability coverage as a claims and supervisory advisor for international and domestic insurance companies. Their activity includes the representation of insurers in all aspects of hedging disputes. Wendy addresses client orders from the dual perspective of a lawyer and a businessman to determine the most effective and cost-effective ways to resolve a particular claim. In her reporting practice, Wendy has dealt with claims under policies for lawyers, architects and engineers, real estate agents, mortgage brokers and insurance brokers and brokers, as well as non-profit organizations, unions, translators and interpreters, telephone marketing services and other diverse professions.