b'TABLE OF CONTENTSAdir in the action under a reservation of rightscommunicating with counsel. Accordingly, a civil pursuant to Adirs insurance policy, which providedlitigants limited due process right to retain counsel that Starr would defend and indemnify Adir and itsis not violated by a statute that bars the use of executives for losses arising from certain claimsinsurance proceeds to pay for legal fees since the alleging wrongful acts. Starr defended Adir untilstatute does not actively prevent the policyholder March 2019 when Starr received a written warningfrom obtaining counsel or communicating with its from the Attorney General explaining that Starrlawyers. The Ninth Circuit also rejected Adirs violated California Insurance Code533.5, whichargument seeking partial coverage under the policy prohibits an insurer from (1) undertaking a duty toon the ground that Insurance Code533.5 applies defend against any action or proceeding by theonly to the damages portion of the UCL and FAL Attorney General that seeks a fine, penalty, orclaims and does not extend to the injunctive relief restitution under the UCL or FAL, and (2) providingportion. The court reasoned that Insurance Codecoverage or indemnification for payment of that533.5 nullifies a duty to defend and indemnify a fine, penalty or restitution if ultimately imposed. Inclaim seeking injunctive relief if that claim also light of that warning, Starr informed Adir that itseeks monetary relief, and because the statutes would stop making payments for defense costs andlanguage prohibiting coverage of any claim did reserved its rights to seek reimbursement ofnot support bifurcating the UCL and FAC claims advanced defense costs. Thereafter, Adir sued Starr,between monetary and injunctive relief. Lastly, the arguing that Starr had a duty to defend Adir in theNinth Circuit held that Starr was entitled to Attorney Generals action and that Starr could notrepayment of the advanced defense costs because recover the advanced defense costs. The districtInsurance Code533.5 nullified its duty to defend court held that Insurance Code533.5 nullifiedand indemnify and the policy had an express Starrs duty to defend and indemnify under thereservation of rights providing for repayment of policy and that Starr was therefore entitled todefense costs if Adir was not entitled to them. The reimbursement of the advanced defense costs. court rejected Adirs estoppel argument, reasoning The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitthat Adir did not suffer a detriment by being unable affirmed. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit rejectedto retain separate counsel and could not have Adirs constitutional argument that Insurance Codereasonably relied to its detriment on Starrs533.5 violates a policyholders due process rightadvancement of defense costs given the express to retain and fund the counsel of its choice. Thereservation of rights.Ninth Circuit reasoned that, unlike in a criminalThe Ninth Circuits decision enforces a state statute case, there is no constitutional right to subsidizedthat prohibits an insurance policy from providing a counsel in a civil case and that while the Fifthduty to defend, coverage, or indemnification for Amendment provides a civil litigant a due processcertain claims. It further allows advanced defense right to retain and fund counsel of their choice, thatcosts to be reimbursed when such legislation due process right is not infringed upon unless theapplies and the policy contains an express government actively prevents hiring orreservation of rights allowing for repayment if the MAYER BROWN |159'