The following excerpt is from Riverbank Holding Co. v. N.H. Ins. Co., No. 2:11-cv-02681-WBS-GGH (E.D. Cal. 2012):
(cases considering apportionment of attorneys' fees upon the wrongful refusal of an insurer to defend an action against its insured generally have held that the insurer is liable for the total amount of fees despite the fact that some of the damages against the insured were outside the coverage of the policy) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, because the duty to defend extends only as far as potentially covered claims, an insurer's liability for legal fees incurred by the insured in the wake of an insurer's breach of the duty to defend extends only to those incurred in connection with defending potentially covered claims. See Id (citing Buss v. superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35, 50 (Cal. 1997)).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.