Rejection of Amber Heard Protection Protection Underscores Significance of Selection of Regulation

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed victory for New York Marine and Common Insurance coverage Co. in its authorized battle with Amber Heard over the price of defending defamation claims introduced in opposition to the actress by ex-husband, Johnny Depp. New York Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Heard, No. 23-3399 (ninth Cir. Nov. 25, 2024). The choice, premised on Virginia legislation, relatively than the policyholder’s favored California legislation, underscores the potential for alternative of legislation to have case-dispositive implications.

Background

New York Marine insured Amber Heard beneath a legal responsibility insurance coverage coverage which, like most legal responsibility insurance coverage insurance policies, included a broad responsibility to cowl the price of Heard’s authorized protection. Previous to notifying the New York Marine of the claims of defamation introduced in opposition to her by ex-husband, Johnny Depp, Heard had retained the legislation agency of Cameron McEvoy PLLC. Upon receiving discover of the claims in opposition to Heard, the insurer agreed to defend the claims beneath a reservation of rights. Heard continued to make use of Cameron McEvoy for her protection, however claimed that the reservation of rights created a battle of curiosity that required New York Marine to offer Heard with unbiased counsel. Heard finally employed her personal unbiased counsel and Cameron McEvoy subsequently withdrew from the litigation. 

Heard insisted that New York Marine cowl the price of her unbiased counsel as a result of a battle of curiosity arose when New York Marine reserved the best to disclaim protection based mostly on info which, if confirmed, would undermine Heard’s authorized protection. Heard based mostly her argument on the rule of California legislation that requires an insurer to offer unbiased counsel when the insurer’s reservation of rights creates a possible battle of curiosity with its insured. San Diego Navy Fed. Credit score Union v. Cumis Ins. Soc’y, 50 A.L.R. 4th 913 (Cal. App. 1984); Cal. Civ. Code § 2860.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Heard’s argument, discovering that regardless of the insurer’s reservation of rights, no battle of curiosity existed ample to warrant appointment of unbiased counsel. The courtroom reasoned that as a result of the underlying protection in Depp v. Heard was litigated in Virginia, and since Heard’s counsel have been members of the Virginia bar and, thus, sure by Virginia’s guidelines of ethics, no battle of curiosity arose since, in Virginia, attorneys are ethically obligated to prioritize their shopper’s pursuits, which in accordance with the courtroom eradicated any potential battle. Because the courtroom defined:

In contrast to California, Virginia’s ethics guidelines present {that a} lawyer appointed by an insurer owes an obligation solely to the insured, to not the provider. . . . Potential disputes between an insurer and insured over indemnification due to this fact don’t put Virginia legal professionals in a conflicted place.

The courtroom’s reasoning raises a number of points. First, whereas it’s unclear whether or not the courtroom meant to attract an moral dichotomy between California and Virginia, the choice means that attorneys in Virginia could also be held to a better moral normal than in California. Regardless, the insurer’s reservation to exclude protection based mostly on info that might probably be adduced via the protection of the underlying litigation appear to counsel a transparent battle the place the policyholder’s counsel might develop the info that in the end defeat protection. Second, though the Ninth Circuit’s choice activates a distinction amongst two states’ guidelines {of professional} conduct, the courtroom by no means engaged in a real choice-of-law evaluation to find out which states’ substantive legislation ought to management the events’ respective duties beneath the insurance coverage coverage. But the courtroom nonetheless determined the attraction within the face of conflicting jurisdictional outcomes. Even with out conducting a alternative of legislation evaluation, nonetheless, the choice illustrates the possibly outcome-determinative penalties choice-of-law can have on an insurance coverage protection dispute, even the place the dispute issues what’s in any other case thought of a broad responsibility to defend.

Takeaways for Policyholders

The Ninth Circuit’s choice demonstrates the significance of understanding how utility of 1 state’s legislation (and moral guidelines) over one other can have an effect on the end result of an insurance coverage protection dispute. The choice additionally illustrates the significance of partaking in a correct choice-of-law evaluation, which apparently didn’t happen right here. Certainly, understanding the place the insurance coverage coverage was issued and the place the allegedly injurious conduct occurred are among the many most vital elements when assessing which states’ legislation controls protection. Policyholders could be well-served, due to this fact, to have interaction protection counsel to evaluate choice-of-law alternate options and decide which variables may most vastly impression final result.