Feld v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company
263 F. Supp. 3d 74
D.D.C.2017Background
- Kenneth Feld was defended by Fulbright & Jaworski in a sibling personal-injury suit; Feld incurred about $4.5 million in legal fees.
- Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) agreed to defend under a reservation of rights and paid Feld just over $2 million.
- Dispute: whether Fulbright and FFIC formed an agreement on reduced hourly rates that limited FFIC’s obligation.
- District Court (Sept. 12, 2016) held as a matter of law that Fulbright and FFIC formed an enforceable contract on rates, limiting FFIC’s payment to ~ $2 million; court also rejected Feld’s good-faith/bad-faith claim.
- Feld moved for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), challenging (1) the summary-judgment analysis on contract formation, (2) whether Feld is bound by counsel’s agreement, and (3) whether FFIC was required to allow independent counsel (consideration/conflict issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a contract was formed between FFIC and Fulbright on hourly rates | Feld: disputed facts and witness credibility create genuine issues for a jury | FFIC: communications (calls, emails, budget) objectively show mutual assent; question is legal | Court: No genuine factual dispute; applying objective D.C. contract law, a contract existed as a matter of law |
| Whether Feld is bound by his counsel’s agreement with FFIC | Feld: he was not party and cannot be bound by counsel’s unilateral agreement | FFIC: general agency rule binds client to attorney’s acts; undisclosed principal rule permits binding | Court: Client is bound by counsel’s acts; prior ruling stands |
| Whether FFIC’s reservation of rights created an actual conflict requiring independent counsel (and thus consideration) | Feld: reservation created an actual conflict so FFIC was obligated to pay for independent counsel (no new consideration) | FFIC: no diametrically opposed interests; allowing choice of counsel was additional consideration | Court: No actual conflict; FFIC’s allowance of counsel choice and reservation of rights constituted sufficient consideration |
| Appropriateness of reconsideration under Rule 54(b) | Feld: court misapplied law and misunderstood evidence; requests reconsideration | FFIC: prior decision correct; no new controlling law or facts | Court: Motion denied; Feld raised matters already considered or legal disagreements, not reasons for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Vector Realty Grp., Inc. v. 711 Fourteenth St., Inc., 659 A.2d 230 (D.C. 1994) (objective standard governs contract formation)
- Rosenthal v. Nat’l Produce Co., 573 A.2d 365 (D.C. 1990) (existence of enforceable contract is a question of law)
- Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standards for reconsideration under Rule 54(b))