Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal. & Sur. $87 -- California Casualty. CalCasualty declined to assume the defense. The only rule that avoids this unjust and inefficient result is this: The duty to defend is satisfied only by either settlement with a complete release or payment of a judgment. 3d 424, 425 [256 Cal.Rptr. Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Durants sought production of all of the documents in Krempa's file. (Maj. Although both plaintiff and the insured expect the excess carrier to pay that debt, the legal liability is the insured's and not primarily the carrier's. The insurance policy covered liability if the plaintiff was determined to be an independent contractor, but not if he was an employee. (3 Cal.Jur.3d, Agency, § 22, p. Excess liability insurance carrier State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") appeals from summary judgment declaring that primary carrier California Casualty Insurance Company ("CalCasualty") was not required to reimburse State Farm for attorney's fees and costs it expended in defending a claim against the insured driver because CalCasualty had paid the full amount of its policy limits to a personal injury claimant. An indemnity insurer, by contracting to defend, and by defending, does not become an agent of the insured, but rather the relationship is that of an independent contractor." We cannot subscribe to this proposition. This release, however, was not executed as prepared. This is precisely what happened when both the plaintiff personally and her attorney indicated Wilson's assets would be sought after to satisfy any judgment in excess *170 of State Farm's liability limits. 3d 1229] result has developed a legal analysis different from the one I believe is warranted. Requiring it to defend merely means that it must do what it has been paid to do. "To fulfill its implied obligation, an insurer must give at least as much consideration to the interests of the insured as it gives to its own interests." section 12-2101(B) (1994). (Sanchez v. Galey, supra, 733 P.2d at p. Initially, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company was named as a Defendant, but that company has since been dismissed from the lawsuit. 160, 721 P.2d 41], Durants contend State Farm is their fiduciary, and as such, cannot employ a single adjuster in a reservation of rights/Cumis situation. Rptr. Free and open company data on California (US) company STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY (company number C0169564), ONE STATE FARM PLAZA BLOOMINGTON IL 61710 App. 3d 752, 768 [206 Cal. Neither the State Farm or Bolger matter appear to … of California Court of Appeal opinions. He therefore served in a dual capacity, assisting and communicating with counsel defending Durants in the liability case, and at the same time communicating with and assisting the State Farm counsel asserting lack of coverage in the declaratory relief case. 214.) Ct. 154, 597 N.E.2d 62 (1992) the policy provided: "Our duty to settle or defend *169 ends when we have paid the maximum limits of coverage under this policy." Requiring the primary insurer to continue its defense induces the primary carrier to cooperate with the excess insurer in settling any claim that implicates the excess coverage. 255], Durants contend Krempa was their agent, and as a result is required to disclose all relevant information to them, including his communications with coverage counsel. CourtListener is sponsored by the non-profit Free Law Project. Co. v. Aetna Cas. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal. Scenario 2-- Basic Liability, Fresno County (Clovis), Single Female Licensed 20 Years, 10,000 Annual Driving Miles, No Violations. The Durants' action was filed on April 7, 1988. On November 9, 1989, with the owner's permission, one James Wilson was driving the Subaru with Kristine Campbell and Craig Campbell as his passengers. A final reason to require the primary carrier to continue the defense is to avoid the disruptive effects of shifting the defense. (See San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Ins. Separate concurring opinion by Nares, J.) (See Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. "[A]n insurance company should be free to seek legal advice in cases where coverage is unclear without fearing that the communications necessary to obtain that advice will later become available to an insured who is dissatisfied with a decision to deny coverage.