In Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, plaintiff alleged that its former attorneys "failed to advise it about, or to assert a timely claim to, liability insurance benefits covering a third party's suit against the client. The client acknowledged it discovered its attorneys' alleged malpractice more than one year before it commenced this action. However, the client also contends it did not sustain actual injury until it later settled its action against its insurer for less than the full benefits it claimed." ( Id. at p. 743.) Plaintiffs alleged that defendants committed malpractice by failing to advise them to assert a timely claim for liability insurance benefits covering the underlying action. The court held that actual injury occurred when the plaintiffs lost business profits and incurred the expense of defending the underlying action before settlement of insurance coverage litigation. ( Id. at p. 752.) The California Supreme Court upheld summary judgment for defendant law firm under section 340.6 where it was alleged the defendant committed malpractice by failing to advise the plaintiffs about, or assert a timely claim to, insurance liability benefits covering an underlying action. In so holding, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that the plaintiffs did not suffer actual injury under the statute until they settled their insurance lawsuits. The plaintiffs had discovered the defendants' alleged neglect and sustained actual injury when they claimed they lost millions of dollars in business profits and incurred the expense of defending the underlying action more than a year before filling their malpractice action. The Supreme Court concluded that actual injury occurred before the client's settlement with the insurer. "Actual injury occurs when the client suffers any loss or injury legally cognizable as damages in a legal malpractice action based on the asserted errors or omissions. " ( Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 743.) "Here, the attorneys' alleged neglect allowed the insurers to raise an objectively viable defense to coverage under the policies. The insurers' assertion of this defense necessarily increased the client's costs to litigate its coverage claims and reduced those claims' settlement value. Moreover, because of the attorneys' alleged neglect, the client provided its own defense in the third party action for several years. Consequently, the client not only lost a primary benefit of liability insurance citation, it also lost profitable alternative uses for the substantial sums it paid in defense costs. These detrimental effects of the attorneys' alleged neglect were not contingent on the outcome of the coverage action. Further, that action could not establish either a breach of a duty to provide timely insurance advice or a causal relationship between the alleged neglect and the claimed damages. Instead, the coverage action settlement simply reflected the client's preexisting predicament -- the attorneys' alleged omissions had diminished the client's right to its liability insurance benefits. The loss or diminution of a right or remedy constitutes injury or damage. Neither uncertainty of amount nor difficulty of proof renders that injury speculative or inchoate. The coverage action settlement was not the first realization of injury from the alleged malpractice; the settlement simply resolved one alternative means to mitigate that injury." ( Id. at pp. 743-744.)