Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV24293, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24293    Hearing Date: July 3, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2022, Plaintiff Paul David Levy filed a complaint against Margarita Salas, Gladys S. Salas, Socorro Salas, and Doe 1 to 50 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 30, 2020.

On May 10, 2024, Petitioner Paul David Levy (“Petitioner”) filed the instant petition to compel arbitration with Respondent Farmers Insurance pursuant to the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist clause in his insurance contract. Petitioner also seeks to stay this action pending resolution of the arbitration. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Insurance Code section 11580.2 requires insurers to provide coverage for bodily injury or wrongful death caused by uninsured motorists. Subdivision (f) of this statute provides that if the insurer and the insured cannot agree whether the insured is legally entitled to recover damages from an uninsured motorist and the amount of such damages, those issues shall be determined by arbitration. (Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).)” (Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1190, 1193.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 permits a party to file a petition to request that the Court order the parties to arbitrate a controversy.¿ Under section 1281.2, a party is permitted to file a motion to request an order directing the parties to arbitrate a controversy.¿ Section 1281.2 also states that the Court may grant the motion if the Court determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists.¿ 

When a motion to compel arbitration is filed and accompanied by prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, the court itself must determine whether the agreement exists and, if any defense to its enforcement is raised, whether it is enforceable.¿(Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Sec. Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)¿ The moving party bears the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence because the existence of the agreement is a statutory prerequisite to granting the petition.¿(Ibid.)¿ 

Since binding arbitration is a matter of contract, the parties may freely delineate the area of its application, and a proceeding to compel arbitration is in essence a suit in equity to compel specific performance of a contract.¿(Freeman v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, 479; Morris v. Zuckerman (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 91, 96.)¿Arbitration, as a general rule, should be upheld by the court, unless it can be said with assurance that an arbitration clause is not susceptible to an interpretation covering the asserted dispute.¿(Bos Material Handling, Inc. v. Crown Controls Corp. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 99, 105; O’Malley v. Wilshire Oil Co. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 482, 490-491.)¿The court should, nonetheless, give effect to the parties’ intentions in light of the usual and ordinary meaning of the contractual language and the circumstances under which the agreement was made.¿(Victoria v. Superior Court (1985) 40 Cal.3d 734, 744.)¿ 

Under Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (i)(2), any arbitration instituted pursuant to an uninsured motorist policy shall be concluded within five years from the institution of the arbitration proceeding. (Ins. Code, § 11580.2 subd. (i)(2)(A).) Further, the provisions of Insurance Code section 11580.2 are deemed to be a part of every uninsured motorist policy. (See Quintano v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1049, 1053; Harford Fire Insurance Co. v. Macri (1992) 4 Cal.4th 318, 324; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Kowalski (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 607, 609.)  

There are two “common themes” in case law interpreting the scope of arbitration under section 11580.2 subdivision (f): “(1) arbitration of issues other than liability and damages is appropriate if the parties have contractually agreed to arbitrate more than is required by section 11580.2, subdivision (f); and, (2) only issues of liability and damages may be decided in an arbitral forum if the parties did not agree to arbitrate more than is required by section 11580.2, subdivision (f).” (Bouton v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1190, 1197.)  

“If the insured has or may have rights to benefits, other than nonoccupational disability benefits, under any workers’ compensation law, the arbitrator shall not proceed with the arbitration until the insured's physical condition is stationary and ratable. In those cases in which the insured claims a permanent disability, the claims shall, unless good cause be shown, be adjudicated by award or settled by compromise and release before the arbitration may proceed.” (Ins. Code § 11580.2(f).) 

“Any demand or petition for arbitration shall contain a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating whether (i) the insured has a workers' compensation claim; (ii) the claim has proceeded to findings and award or settlement on all issues reasonably contemplated to be determined in that claim; and (iii) if not, what reasons amounting to good cause are grounds for the arbitration to proceed immediately.” (Ins. Code § 11580.2(f).) 

DISCUSSION

First, there is no proof of service of this petition on Farmers Insurance. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires “written notice” of a motion including the date, time and location of the hearing on a motion. A moving party’s failure to serve the notice of motion and moving papers on a non-moving party violates the basic principles of procedural due process under the federal and state constitutions – notice and an opportunity to be heard.¿ (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982) 455 U.S. 422, 428 [minimum due process requires notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case]; Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612 [due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard].)

Additionally, Petitioner has not attached a copy of the purported insurance contract. There also is no declaration pursuant to section 11580.2(f).

Therefore, due to the procedural defects, the motion to compel arbitration is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Petitioner Paul David Levy’s motion to compel arbitration and stay all judicial proceedings pending the completion of arbitration is DENIED.

Moving party shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.