In CAMICO Mutual Insurance Co. v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP,No. 11-4753, (E.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2013), the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that an insured properly asserted attorney-client privilege against its insurer with respect to communications between the insured and defense counsel whose fees had been paid by the insurer. The insurer, which had paid defense counsel’s fees under a reservation of rights, sought otherwise privileged communications, arguing that it had a common interest with the insured. The court noted that the common interest doctrine applies only where there are separate lawyers for separate clients. Where there is one lawyer, only the joint client privilege might apply. Predicting how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule, the court held that there was no joint client relationship between defense counsel and the insurer. First, rejecting the “absolute rule” applied in some jurisdictions and by other federal district courts applying Pennsylvania law, the court held that merely paying defense counsel’s fees does not create a joint attorney-client relationship. Second, the facts of the case demonstrated that no such relationship existed. The insured independently retained defense counsel; defense counsel stated that it did not consider the insurer to be its client; and the insurer had referred to defense counsel as “independent counsel” in correspondence with the insured.