Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 24STCP00612, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCP00612 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024 Dept: 76
The following
tentative ruling is being posted online pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1308 at 2:53 p.m. on June 3, 2024.
Notice of intent
to appear is REQUIRED pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1). The Court does not desire oral argument on
the motion addressed herein.
As required by
Rule 3.1308(a)(1), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER
PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 by 4:00 p.m. on June 3, 2024.
Notice to
Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically
at 213-830-0776.
Per Rule of Court
3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, oral argument will not
be permitted.
This is a
petition to confirm an appraisal award regarding a home insurance dispute
pertaining to damage to Petitioner’s roof.
TENTATIVE RULING
Petitioner Angela Cozzi’s petition to confirm appraisal
award is GRANTED.
ANALYSIS
Petition To
Confirm Arbitration Award
Discussion
This is a petition to confirm an
appraisal award regarding a home insurance dispute pertaining to damage to
Petitioner’s roof.
Generally, appraisal award proceedings are subject to the
arbitration provisions outlined in the California Arbitration Act, Code of
Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. “An agreement to conduct an appraisal
contained in a policy of insurance constitutes an ‘agreement’ within the
meaning of section 1280, subdivision (a), and therefore is considered to be an
arbitration agreement subject to the statutory contractual arbitration law.” (Louise Gardens, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 658, fn. omitted; accord, Michael v. Aetna Life & Casualty Ins. Co. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 925, 934 [106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 240].)
However, while “arbitrators are frequently, by the terms of the agreement providing for
arbitration … given broad powers … appraisers generally have more
limited powers.” (Jefferson
Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 398, 403
[90 Cal. Rptr. 608, 475 P.2d 880], citation omitted.) Thus, as discussed
earlier this year by our colleagues in Division Four, “parties are … free to
confirm the [appraisal] award issued by the [appraisal] panel in the same
manner in which an arbitration award is enforced. [Citations.] A confirmed
award of appraisers and umpire is treated as a confirmed arbitration award,
which has the ‘ “same force and effect as … a judgment in a civil action.” ’
[Citation.] Although it is true that a party to a fire insurance contract
retains jury trial rights as to other issues, the party ‘simply has no jury
trial right as regards the setting of the dollar amount of the loss under the
policy.’ ” (Lambert v. Carneghi (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1132 [70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 626].)
A party may petition the court to confirm, vacate or correct an
appraisal award (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285), and a responding party may
seek dismissal of the petition, or ask the court to confirm, vacate, or correct
the award as well (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.2). (See Louise Gardens, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 658.) The court “shall confirm the award as
made … unless … it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the
award or dismisses the proceedings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1286.) “If
an award [*1506] is confirmed, judgment shall be entered in
conformity therewith. The judgment so entered has the same force and effect as,
and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil
action of the same jurisdictional classification; and it may be enforced like
any other judgment of the court in which it is entered, in an action of the
same jurisdictional classification.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4.)
(Devonwood Condominium Owners Assn. v. Farmers
Ins. Exchange (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1498, 1505-06.)
The petition to confirm must be
served and filed no later than four years after the date of service of a signed
copy of the award on the petitioner (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288) but may not be
served and filed until at least 10 days after service of the signed copy of the
award upon the petitioner. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.4.)
Although a petition to confirm arbitration award may be filed after 10
days of the service of the award (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1288.4), the hearing must
be at least 100 days after the service of the award (Civ. Proc. Code, §
1288.2), which is the period of time in which the respondent may either file a
file a petition to vacate the award, even if that time is beyond the 10 days in
which the respondent may file a response to the petition. (Civ. Proc. Code, §§
1285.2, 1290.6.) As articulated by the California Supreme Court, it
appears that a response to a petition to confirm an arbitration award, which
response seeks to vacate or reduce the award, may be served within 100 days
of the service of the award.(Law Fin.
Grp., LLC v. Key (2023)
14 Cal.5th 932, 946-47 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)
Here, the award is dated November
28, 2022, and presumably was served around that time.
As articulated by the California
Supreme Court, it appears that a response to a petition to confirm an
arbitration award, which response seeks to vacate or reduce the award,
may be served within 100 days of the service of the award.
The Act also sets out a more specific set of procedures
governing postarbitration proceedings, including deadlines by which parties
seeking to confirm or vacate an arbitral award must file those requests with
the court. (See Code Civ. Proc., pt. 3, tit. 9, ch. 4 [“Enforcement
of the Award”].) A party seeking to confirm the arbitral award may file a
petition within four [*946] years of the service of the final
award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1288.) A party seeking to vacate the arbitral
award, however, has much less time. A request to vacate may be made either
in a petition to vacate (id., § 1285) or in a
response to the petition to confirm (id., § 1285.2). Regardless of the method, the Act
imposes the same deadline: “A petition to vacate an award … shall be served
and filed not later than 100 days after the date of the service of a signed
copy of the award on the petitioner” (id., § 1288), and
identically, “[a] response requesting that an award be vacated … shall
be served and filed not later than 100 days after the date of service of a
signed copy of the award” on the respondent (id., § 1288.2).
. . .
Under the plain terms of sections
1288 and 1288.2, Key had 100 days from the service of the final
award to request that the arbitration award be vacated—whether she chose to do
so via a standalone petition to vacate or via a response to Lender's petition
to confirm the award. Key's argument that her 139-day filing was nonetheless timely
depends on the proposition that section 1290.6—a general statutory
provision permitting parties to extend the default 10-day period for any
responsive filing in an arbitration matter—supersedes the specific 100-day
deadline for requesting that an arbitration award be vacated, at least when a
petition to confirm has been filed within 100 days of the award's
service. But under the governing statutes, neither deadline supersedes the
other. On the contrary, when a filing both (1) responds to a
petition to confirm, and (2) requests that the arbitration award be vacated,
both deadlines apply: (1) Absent a written agreement or
court [*947] order, the response must be filed within 10 days
after service of the petition to confirm and (2) in any event, no later than
100 days after service of the award. This rule respects the plain
language of both provisions without reading an unnecessary conflict into the
statutory scheme. (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387 [241 Cal. Rptr. 67, 743 P.2d
1323] [“[S]tatutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must
be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible.”].)
(Law Fin. Grp., LLC v. Key (2023) 14 Cal.5th 932, 946-47 [bold
emphasis and underlining added].)
The 100-day period following the
issuance (and presumably service) of the award is March 8, 2023. As such, this
petition complies with the time periods set forth in Civ. Proc. Code, §§
1288 and 1288.4.
Any party to an arbitration award
may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1285.) “If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served
and filed, the court shall confirm
the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in
accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as
corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
1286 [bold emphasis added].) A petition to confirm a binding arbitration shall
name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name any other
parties to be bound by the award. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) The petition shall
(1) set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to
arbitrate unless petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement; (2) set
forth the name(s) of the arbitrator(s); and (3) set forth or have attached a
copy of the award and written opinion of the arbitrator. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1285.4(a)-(c).)
Cal. Civ. Proc, § 1290.4 governs
the method of service of the petition to confirm arbitration as follows:
(b) If the arbitration agreement
does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person
upon whom service is to be made has not previously appeared in the proceeding
and has not previously been served in accordance with this subdivision:
(1) Service within this State shall
be made in the manner provided by law for the service of summons in an action.
. . .
(c) If the arbitration agreement
does not provide the manner in which such service shall be made and the person
on whom service is to be made has previously appeared in the proceeding or has
previously been served in accordance with subdivision (b) of this section,
service shall be made in the manner provided in Chapter 5 (commencing
with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.
(Code
Civ. Proc., § 1290.4 [bold emphasis added].)
Here,
the petition was served by personal service. A copy of the agreement to appoint
appraisers was not attached to the Petition.
All parties to the appraisal were
named as Respondents in the Petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.) The name of
the Umpire—Leslie Steven Marks, Esq.—is set forth in the Petition. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1285.4(b).) A copy of the award and written opinion is attached to the
Petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1285.4(c).) The terms of the Award are set forth
therein. The Umpire’s award was as follows:
a. The Replacement Cost Loss was
determined to be 206,870.80;
b. The Actual Cash Value Loss was
determined to be 189,050.50.
c. The Appraisal Award is valid and
binding upon all parties concerned as
evidenced by the Appraisal Panels’
signatures below.
d. The Appraisal Award was made
without any consideration of any
coverage issues, policy limits,
deductible amount, or prior payments by the Insurer.
e. The Appraisal Award is solely
based upon the valuation of loss that
occurred on July 16, 2020.
All the requirements for
confirmation of the arbitration award have been satisfied.
Respondent did not file any
opposition.
Accordingly,
the petition to confirm appraisal award is GRANTED.