Court Opinion

ID: 9744587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:08:17.00808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:50.167957
License: Public Domain

FLEMING, J., Concurring.
It appears to me Home owed no duty to Borges to recognize any lien for attorney’s fees until such time as he advised Home that he had a contractual lien. At no time did he do this. Consequently, Home had neither responsibility nor authority to pay out the insured’s moneys to Borges or anyone else, except as instructed by the insured, Harriet Burbank. (Ambrose v. McDonald, 53 Cal. 28.)
On March 5 Home issued three drafts in accordance with instructions from Harriet Burbank, the insured. It still had no legal duty or authority to stop payment on these drafts on instructions of Borges. Instructions only came with Harriet Burbank’s letter, dated March 12, which gave authority to stop payment on the United States Treasury Department draft and issue a new one with different payees. If her *285instructions were delivered to Home before March 16, the date on which the Treasury Department draft was presented for payment, a question of law and fact might possibly arise as to whether Home had breached any duty owed to Harriet Burbank of which Borges was a beneficiary. The record strongly suggests that Borges did not deliver the stop-payment authorization to Home before March 16, but there is some room for doubt.
Other than this limited point I see no contested issue of fact here the resolution of which would affect the legal rights of the parties or support any liability on the part of Home to pay twice on the same insurance policy.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 9, 1966. Fleming, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.