Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24NNCV01671, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01671    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

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 requested 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: 

Agapeh Panosiyan (Petitioner) brings this petition to compel Tesla Insurance Services, Inc. (Tesla) to arbitrate an uninsured motorist claim. Petitioner alleges that State National Insurance Company, Inc., being handled by Tesla, provided uninsured motorist insurance on Petitioner’s vehicle at the time of the accident. Tesla has filed no opposition to this petition.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement.” (C.C.P. §1281.2(a)-(b).)

The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. (Fagelbaum & Heller LLP v. Smylie (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1363.) Courts “use general principles of California contract law to determine the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.” (Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates v. Beta Healthcare Group (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1153.)

The California Insurance Code requires an insurer to provide uninsured motorists coverage in each bodily injury liability insurance policy it issues covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. (Ins. Code. § 11580.2(a)(1)-(2).) The policy “shall provide that the determination as to whether the insured shall be legally entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled, the amount thereof, shall be made by agreement between the insured and the insurer or, in the event of disagreement, by arbitration.” (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).)

II.                 MERITS

October 13, 2023, Petitioner was involved in an automobile collision with an uninsured motorist (Chichyan Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A.) On April 13, 2024, Petitioner submitted her California Insurance Code § 11580.2 demand for Uninsured Motorist Arbitration via Certified Mail. (Chichyan Deel. ¶43, Exh. A.) Also on April 13, 2024, Petitioner submitted correspondence to Tesla requesting their preferred list of neutral arbitrators. (Chichyan Deel. ¶ 5, Exh. B.) This correspondence listed May 17, 2024 as the deadline for Tesla to provide a list of arbitrators. (Id.) Petitioner states their counsel has had multiple communications with the adjuster for the claim, but never received a list of arbitrators. (Chichyan Decl. ¶ 6.) Petitioner states that Tesla has thus far never responded regarding arbitration or selection of arbitrators. (Chichyan Decl. ¶ 7.)

The Court notes that the insurance agreement under which Petitioner and Tesla are allegedly bound is absent from the moving papers. Further, no agreement appears to be attached to any of Petitioner’s other filings. Without the terms of this agreement, the Court is without the information to determine that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Further, the Court notes that Petitioner’s submissions do not contain the declaration required by Ins. Code. § 11580.2 (f). In fact, it appears that Petitioner has not alleged whether the claim was even denied by Tesla. As it stands, the Court is unaware of any arbitration agreement between the parties or what the status of the uninsured motorist claim is.

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED without prejudice.

--- 

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 

Agapeh Panosiyan’s Petition to Compel Arbitration came on regularly for hearing on June 28, 2024, 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 COMPEL ARBITRATION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PETITIONER TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  June 28, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles