sufficient to stimulate communication with the attorney, then there is no reason for the privilege to attach. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Beyond the general framework of addressing the privilege where in-house counsel is involved, as set forth above, it is also important in this case to consider how courts have addressed the privilege in the insurance context. We thus recognize that when a communication between an insurance company and its attorney deals with the issue of coverage under a policy, including when the communication references the investigation undertaken to facilitate the rendering of legal advice on coverage, such communication is typically privileged. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Super. Ct., 153 Cal.App.3d 467, 476, 200 Cal.Rptr. 471, 476 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. v. Lake Cnty.
holding that retention of an attorney to investigate an insurance claim and make a coverage determination under a policy is a classic example of a client seeking legal advice from an attorney holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client recognizing that an attorney has a duty of loyalty to his client holding that if documents are privileged in the hands of the client they retain that privilege when given to an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice holding that a document which is given to an attorney in the course of seeking legal advice is privileged in the hands of the attorney only if it was privileged in the hands of the client