Skip to main content

Attorneys Retained by Liability and Underinsured Motorist Insurers

Adopted: October 18, 1991

Opinion rules that an attorney employed by an insurer to defend in the name of the defendant pursuant to underinsured motorist coverage may not communicate with that individual without the consent of another attorney employed to represent that individual by her liability insurer and that the attorney employed by the liability insurer may not take a position on behalf of the insured which is adverse to the insured.

Editor's Note: This opinion was originally published as RPC 110 (Revised).

Inquiry #1:

Driver One sued Driver Two for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The automobile liability insurance company (Liability Co.) that provided coverage to Driver Two retained Attorney X, who has appeared for and is engaged in the defense of Driver Two. Driver One has underinsured motorist coverage with UIM Co., and UIM Co. has retained Attorney Y to appear in the lawsuit to protect the interest of UIM Co. by defending in the name of Driver Two pursuant to G.S. §20-279.21(b)(3)a and 20-279.21(b)(4).

Liability Co. now wishes to pay its coverage and be relieved of any further liability or obligation to defend. Liability Co. has retained Attorney Z to petition the court for an order allowing that relief, pursuant to G.S. §20-279.21(b)(4). UIM Co. has instructed Attorney Y to oppose the petition as it relates to Liability Co.'s duty to defend.

Driver Two has not retained independent counsel to represent him in connection with the lawsuit or the petition by Liability Co.

May Attorney Y communicate with Driver Two concerning the defense of the lawsuit, without the consent of Attorney X?

Opinion #1:

No. Although the answer may depend on unresolved issues of statutory interpretation, UIM Co. has a statutory right (but not necessarily a duty) to defend the suit in the name of Driver Two. Thus, Attorney Y owes his allegiance to the court and UIM Co. whose interest may or may not be aligned with the interest of Driver Two on particular issues or at various times. For example, UIM Co. will initially share the interest of Driver Two in preventing or reducing recovery by Driver One, but UIM Co. may later be adverse to Driver Two on the same issues if UIM Co. becomes the subrogee of Driver One. Because Driver Two is represented by Attorney X (see RPC 56), Attorney Y (as counsel for UIM Co.) must obtain the consent of Attorney X to communicate with Driver Two. Rule 7.4(a). To avoid frustrating the rights granted to UIM Co. by the underinsured motorist statute, Attorney X should normally consent to communication on any issue where the interests of UIM Co. and Driver Two are aligned. However, Attorney Y should fully disclose his role to Driver Two, and Attorney X should have the opportunity to be present during the communication between Attorney Y and Driver Two.

Inquiry #2:

May Attorney X represent Driver Two in connection with Liability Co.'s petition to be relieved of its obligation to defend Driver Two?

Opinion #2:

No. Because Attorney X represents both the insurer (Liability Co.) and the insured (Driver Two), his representation of the insured would be materially limited by his responsibility to the insurer and he could not reasonably believe otherwise. Rule 5.1, RPC 91 and RPC 92. However, Attorney Y, representing the interest of UIM Co. as an unnamed party, may appear in opposition to the petition of Liability Co.

Back to top