Hinshaw reports this case:

"Indiana Court of Appeals Holds Excess Insurer May Not Sue Insured’s Attorneys for Legal Malpractice

Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., et al. v. Transcontinental Insurance Company, __N.E.2d__, 2007 WL 505791 (Ind. App. 2007)

The court held that an excess carrier could not bring a legal malpractice action against counsel for the insured and the primary carrier under an equitable subrogation theory as such a theory would be contrary to the Indiana rule of non-assignability of legal malpractice claims. The court also held that on the facts as adduced, the excess carrier could not assert that it had an express or implied attorney-client relationship with counsel for the insured and the primary carrier.