1E9Ct5D

job is to protect the company’s bottom line. Consequently, in-house attorneys shouldtake time to explain their ethical obligations to their superiors, as well as theconsequences for failing to exercise independent discretion.Illinois courts have ruled that an attorney-client relationship exists between an insuredand the attorney hired by the insurer, which imposes upon the attorney the sameprofessional obligations that would exist had the attorney been personally retained bythe insured. 31In Nandorf, the plaintiff insured was sued by parties who alleged that they were yelled at,shoved, and imprisoned by employees in a store owned by plaintiffs. Defendant insurertendered a defense, but informed plaintiff that it would not be responsible for anypunitive damages. Plaintiff then retained an independent law firm, but defendant refusedto alter its position regarding punitive damages, relinquish control of the litigation, orreimburse plaintiff for expenses incurred in retaining the independent counsel. Plaintifffiled a declaratory judgment action, but defendant's motion to dismiss was granted andplaintiff appealed. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded forinstructions to grant plaintiff relief, finding, in part, that the parties shared a commoninterest in a finding of no liability, but that if plaintiff was found liable, their interestsdiverged because defendant's interests would have been just as well served by anaward of minimal compensatory damages and substantial punitive damages. The courtheld that defendant's fidelity to plaintiff was hampered by its own interests, and found31 Nandorf, Inc. v. CNA Ins. Cos., 479 N.E.2d 988, 972 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985); see also Rogers v. Robson,Masters, Ryan, Brumund & Belom, 392 N.E.2d 1365 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979); Bartosiak, Harry E., Conflicts ofInterest Within the Tri-partite Relationship, IDC Quarterly (Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel),Vol. 6, No. 4.24