For years the conflict of interest problem that occasionally arose out of the defense of an insured by his liability carrier denying coverage under the policy was, for the most part ignored. Now, within the last decade, it has surfaced as one of the most litigated questions in the field of insurance law. In the last issue of this Review, this author attempted an exegesis of Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Trainor, then the latest pronouncement on the subject by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Soon after that article was published, the Supreme Court again addressed itself to the problem in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pildner. While the majority opinion in that case sustains the thesis expressed in the aforementioned article, the concurring opinion suggests a radical departure. This postscript, then, will examine Pildner in the light of Trainor, and attempt a critical analysis of the Pildner concurring opinion.
J. Patrick Browne,
The Demise of the Declaratory Judgment Action as a Device for Testing the Insurer's Duty to Defend: A Postscript,
24 Clev. St. L. Rev.
available at http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol24/iss1/5