Ingersoll-Rand Equipment Corp. v. Transportation Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• predicting that Pennsylvania courts would find an independent contractor relationship between insurers and defense counsel hired to represent insureds, such that the lawyer’s negligence cannot be imputed to the insurer
• explaining that although insurers are not vicariously liable for a lawyer’s malpractice, they may be liable for their own misconduct “where, for example, [they] exercise[] an abnormal degree of control over litigation”
• rejecting vicarious liability as an available claim against an insurance company regarding the actions of an attorney it hired to defend an insured
• “The attorney’s ethical obligations to his or her client, the insured, prevent the insurer from exercising the degree of control necessary to justify the imposition of vicarious liability”
• “In Pennsylvania, there is no separate tort-law cause of action against an insurer for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty: such claims must be brought in contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).