Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24BBCP00047, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24BBCP00047    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: A

PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD

MP:     David Minkin & Jessica Peterson (Petitioners)

RP:     United Financial Casualty Company (Respondent)

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS:

Petitioners’ seeks a “Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award” pursuant to C.C.P. § 1285 as it relates to an uninsured motorist arbitration. Respondent opposes the petition, arguing that no arbitration award was ever made. Petitioners reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.                    LEGAL STANDARDS

Any party to an arbitration award may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (C.C.P. § 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.” (C.C.P. § 1286.)

II.                 ANALYSIS

Facts

The California Insurance Code requires that claims involving uninsured/underinsured motorists must be arbitrated before any cause of action under that claim begins to accrue. (See Insurance Code § 11580.2(i)(1)(c) [“No cause of action shall accrue to the insured under any policy or endorsement provision issued pursuant to this section unless…[t]he insured has formally instituted arbitration proceedings by notifying the insurer in writing sent by certified mail, return receipt requested… within two years from the date of the accident.”].)

On June 14, 2022, Petitioners sent Respondent a letter formally demanding arbitration pursuant in accordance with their obligation under Insurance Code § 11580.2(i)(1)(c). (Kim Decl. ¶ 4.) On November 22, 2022, Respondent sent Petitioners a letter formally acknowledging the arbitration requirement. (Kim Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. C.)

On April 19, 2024, the parties selected Judge Bryan F. Foster (Ret.) as the arbitrator and set arbitration proceedings for December 5-6, 2024. (Kim Decl. ¶ 11.)

On December 2, 2024, the parties reached a settlement prior to entering arbitration. (Kim Decl. ¶ 15, Exh. 1; Long Decl. Exh. 2.) No release was requested or signed. (Kim Decl. ¶ 15.) Petitioners’ counsel then reached out to the arbitrator and cancelled the pending arbitration. (Long Exh. 3.)

On December 11, 2024, Petitioners filed the instant petition. On December 17, 2024, Petitioners requested the arbitrator, Judge Foster to make a post settlement arbitration determination that Respondent be ordered to pay costs and prejudgment interest. (Kim Decl. ¶ 26, Exh. K.) On December 19, 2024, the arbitrator responded and deferred to the discretion of this Court to declare the appropriate forum for the recovery of costs. (Id.)

Discussion

C.C.P. § 1285.4 sets forth the requirements for a petition to confirm a binding arbitration award. By statute, the petition must do all of the following:

(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.

(C.C.P. § 1285.4(a)-(c).)

Here, arbitration is mandated by law, but Petitioners cannot comply with the requirements of C.C.P. § 1285.4(c) because no arbitration ever occurred. Both parties agree that the matter settled prior to arbitration. It is undisputable that no arbitration took place, and no arbitration award was ever made. As no arbitration award was ever made, there is no award to confirm.  The financial obligations between the parties is dictated by the settlement agreement entered into prior to and in lieu of arbitration.  Accordingly, the petition is defective and must be DENIED.

To clarify the prior petition filed with the Court. That previous petition granted jurisdiction pursuant to Insurance Code § 11580.2(f)(1) only for the purpose of discovery disputes. Once a dispute is submitted to arbitration, it is the province of the arbitrator to make all findings and rulings necessary for complete resolution of the dispute. (See Briggs v. Resolution Remedies (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1400-1401.) As such, any dispute here regarding costs and prejudgment interest is properly resolved by the arbitrator.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the Court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the Court’s records.

ORDER

David Minkin & Jessica Peterson’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award came on regularly for hearing on January 17, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD IS DENIED.  

RESPONDENT TO GIVE NOTICE.

DATE:  January 17, 2025                               _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. Tavelman, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles