Opinion ID: 558039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Attorney-Client Relationship: Pullman-Continental

Text: 28 Continental's original complaint alleged that Pullman knew that Continental was the excess carrier and that Continental relied on the Pullman Firm's professional advice and services as malpractice litigation counsel in the Mather lawsuit. As a result, Continental concludes that the Pullman Firm represented Continental as excess insurer covering the Hospital for the Mather lawsuit. Embroidering this conclusion, the complaint also states that Pullman conducted all pre-trial and trial work as counsel for Continental, Aetna and the Hospital. Not surprisingly, the district court found these allegations vague and conclusory, and granted defendants' motion. The district court did, however, allow Continental leave to replead a more precise claim of an actual attorney-client relationship. See Keating v. Carey, 706 F.2d 377, 392 n. 2 (2d Cir.1983) (Meskill, J., dissenting). 29 In its amended complaint, Continental did little to improve the original pleading. Resonating again with bald conclusions, the amended complaint alleged that Pullman undertook to protect the interests of Continental as well as those of Aetna and the Hospital. To support this claim, the amended complaint pleads that Pullman: (1) communicated with Continental about the progress of the Mather lawsuit; (2) advised Continental so that it would and did offer a settlement; and (3) continued to be Continental's counsel on the appeal. 30 It is interesting that Continental never pleaded--nor could it--that it had a retainer agreement with Pullman for the law firm's services. Admittedly, this is not dispositive since under Connecticut law, [t]he test of the attorney-client relationship is not who pays the bills, but to whom allegiance is owed. Petrowski v. Norwich Free Academy, 2 Conn.App. 551, 563, 481 A.2d 1096, 1104 (1984) (citing Novella, 163 Conn. 552, 316 A.2d 394), rev'd on other grounds, 199 Conn. 231, 506 A.2d 139 (1986). 31 It is clear beyond cavil that in the insurance context the attorney owes his allegiance, not to the insurance company that retained him but to the insured defendant. 16A J. Appleman & J. Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice Sec. 8839.35, at 108, 108 n. 9.5 (1981). As the Connecticut Supreme Court has written: The relationship between an insured and attorneys in the legal department of the insurer in respect to litigation against the insured involving the subject matter of the insurance is that of attorney and client, whether or not the insurer employs outside counsel to represent the insured in the lawsuit. Goldenberg v. Corporate Air, Inc., 189 Conn. 504, 509, 457 A.2d 296, 299 (1983), overruled on other grounds, 202 Conn. 660, 522 A.2d 812 (1987). Even though trial counsel is selected by and looks to an insurer for compensation, and although he keeps the insurer informed about the progress of the case, we do not find those factors to be conclusive. 'An attorney's allegiance is to his client, not to the person who happens to be paying for his services.'  Novella, 163 Conn. at 573, 316 A.2d at 405 (quoting Martyn v. Donlin, 151 Conn. 402, 414, 198 A.2d 700, 706 (1964)). 32 The district court did not err in dismissing the amended complaint against Pullman, finding insufficient facts to support an attorney-client relationship with Continental.