KYBAR September 1996

In Kentucky, may a claimant's lawyer contact an insured tortfeasor over the insurer's objection when no defense lawyer has been appointed for the insured?

Short answer: Yes. The opinion concluded an insurance adjuster is not a lawyer for purposes of KRPC 4.2, so a claimant's lawyer needs no adjuster consent to contact an insured who is not represented by counsel, while still complying with KRPC 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1996
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The opinion responded to a claimant's lawyer who reported that insurance adjusters were "acting as lawyers" and blocking contact with insureds. The Committee answered that a claimant's lawyer may contact the insured tortfeasor over the adjuster's objection when no lawyer has been appointed to represent the insured.

The Committee reasoned that insurance adjusters are not lawyers for purposes of KRPC 4.2, and that even an adjuster admitted to practice may not represent the insured in this capacity (KBA U-36). It followed that a plaintiff's lawyer does not need an adjuster's consent to contact the insured. The Committee qualified its answer: if the plaintiff's lawyer knows the insured is in fact represented by a lawyer in the matter, that lawyer may not be bypassed under KRPC 4.2. In making contact, the lawyer may not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested and must comply with KRPC 4.1 (truthfulness), 4.3 (dealing with an unrepresented person), and 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996 and predates the Kentucky Supreme Court's substantial 2009 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130). The Kentucky Bar Association notes that the rules are amended periodically and that lawyers should consult the current version before relying on this opinion. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a Kentucky claimant's lawyer contact an insured tortfeasor when an adjuster objected?

A: Per the opinion, yes, if no lawyer had been appointed for the insured. The Committee concluded an adjuster is not a lawyer under KRPC 4.2, so the lawyer needed no adjuster consent.

Q: Did the no-contact rule ever block the contact?

A: The opinion concluded it applied only if the insured was actually represented by a lawyer in the matter; in that case KRPC 4.2 barred bypassing that lawyer.

Q: What limits applied when making the contact?

A: Per the opinion, the lawyer could not state or imply being disinterested and had to comply with KRPC 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4 in dealing with the unrepresented insured.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets KRPC 4.2 (communication with a person represented by counsel; the Model Rule 4.2 counterpart) and the related rules governing dealings with others: KRPC 4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), KRPC 4.3 (dealing with an unrepresented person), and KRPC 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons) (Model Rules 4.1, 4.3, 4.4).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 4.2 / KRPC 4.2 (communication with a represented person)
  • MR 4.1 / KRPC 4.1 (truthfulness to others)
  • MR 4.3 / KRPC 4.3 (dealing with an unrepresented person)
  • MR 4.4 / KRPC 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons)

Other opinions cited:

  • KBA U-36 (1981): an insurance adjuster may not represent the insured

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-393
Issued: September 1996

The Rules of Professional Conduct are amended periodically. Lawyers should consult
the current version of the rules and comments, SCR 3.130 (available at
http://www.kybar.org), before relying on this opinion.

Question:

May the lawyer for a claimant contact the insured tortfeasor, over the objection of
the insurer, if no lawyer has been appointed to represent the insured tortfeasor?

Answer:

Yes

References:

KRPC 4.2
OPINION

Insurance adjusters are not lawyers for purposes of KRPC 4.2. Even if they are admitted
to practice law, they may not represent the insured. See KBA U-36 (1981). It seems to follow,
as the night follows the day, that a plaintiff’s lawyer does not need to obtain an insurance
adjuster’s consent to talk to anyone. If the plaintiff’s lawyer knows that the insured is
represented by a lawyer, then that lawyer may not be bypassed. See KRPC 4.2 (“represented by
another lawyer in the matter”).
This opinion was issued at the request of a lawyer who says that adjusters are “acting as
lawyers” and “blocking contact with insureds”. The request is within the scope of SCR 3.530,
since the lawyer is concerned with the ethics of contacting the insured over the adjuster’s
purported veto in these circumstances.
The lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested and shall comply with
KRPC 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.


Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the Kentucky
Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530 (or its predecessor
rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1996 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.