Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01020, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV01020 Hearing Date: February 2, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: February
2, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: CHU CHOW v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV01020
MOTION
TO COMPEL APPRAISAL
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Geico General Insurance
Company (“Defendant”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff
Chu Chow
SERVICE: Filed January 10, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed January 17, 2023
REPLY: Filed January 24, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to submit his claim to
appraisal and for an order dismissing or staying the present case.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Chu Chow’s
(“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Geico General Insurance Company (“Defendant”)
has violated California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s
motion to compel appraisal is GRANTED.
Defendant’s
request to stay the proceedings is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
Defendant moves for an order
compelling Plaintiff to submit this claim to the appraisal proceeding.
“An appraisal provision in an insurance policy
constitutes an agreement for contractual arbitration.” (Doan v. State Farm
General Ins. Co. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1093.) “Appraisal
hearings are a form of arbitration and are generally subject to the rules
governing arbitration.” (Kacha v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2006) 140
Cal.App.4th 1023, 1031.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 generally
provides that where a party to an arbitration agreement petitions the court
with allegations of an agreement to arbitrate a controversy and another
party refuses to arbitrate, ‘the court shall order [the parties] to
arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate
the controversy exists....’ ” (Kirkwood v. California State Automobile Assn.
Inter-Ins. Bureau (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 49, 57-58.)
Defendant
provides that the policy at issue in the present case was issued to Peter S.
Chow and Jingyi Huang for the period of February 27, 2022 through August 27,
2022 (“Policy”). (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibit 1.) The Policy was
for a 2016 Nissan Versa (“Vehicle”). (Ibid.)
Defendant provides that on March 20, 2022, Peter Chow reported
that the Vehicle had been damaged in an accident. (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 8.)
Defendant determined the estimated cost of repair to be $8,347.12 and estimated
the actual cash value (“ACV”) to be $11,128.92. (Id. ¶ 9.) On April 13,
2022, Defendant invoked the appraisal provision in the Policy after it
determined that it could not come to an agreement on the ACV of the Vehicle
with the insured. (Id. ¶ 16.) Defendant provides that the insured
refused to participate in the appraisal process. (Ibid.) The Policy Index
of the Policy includes a section for appraisal:
If we and the
insured do not agree on the amount of loss, either may, within 60 days after
proof of loss is filed, demand an appraisal of the loss. In that event, we and
the insured will each select a competent appraiser. The appraisers will select
a competent and disinterested umpire. The appraisers will state separately the
actual cash value and the amount of the loss. If they fail to agree, they will
submit the dispute to the umpire. An award in writing of any two will determine
the amount of loss. We and the insured will each pay his chosen appraiser and
will bear equally the other expenses of the appraisal and umpire. We will not
waive our rights by any of our acts relating to appraisal.
(Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibit 1
at p. 34.)
Additionally, the Policy has a section that provides: “Suit
will not lie against us unless the policy terms have been complied with and
until 30 days after proof of loss is filed and until the amount of loss is
determined.” (Rodriguez Decl. ¶ 5,
Exhibit 1 at p. 33.)
In the complaint and in opposition, Plaintiff makes broad
claims that Defendant has engaged in a conspiracy to target Peter Chow.
However, Plaintiff’s claims are not substantiated by any evidence. Plaintiff’s
claims are predicated on his disagreement with Defendant’s valuation of the ACV
of the Vehicle under Policy. Further, Plaintiff does not contest that the
appraisal provision applies to the Vehicle covered by the Policy. Plaintiff
also does not contest the validity or enforceability of the appraisal provision
other than broadly claiming that Defendant engaged in a conspiracy against
Peter Chow.
Here, Defendant has established that the Policy contains
an appraisal provision that it sought to invoke but that Plaintiff and the
insured refused to comply with. Plaintiff’s claims are ordered to be submitted for
appraisal.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides in part:
“If a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has
ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or
proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action
or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or
proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in
accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court
specifies.”
Defendant’s
request to stay the proceedings pending the appraisal process is granted.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s
motion to compel appraisal is GRANTED.
Defendant’s
request to stay the proceedings is GRANTED.
Court sets a status hearing
regarding appraisal of ACV of subject vehicle on August 2nd, 2023 at
8:30 am.
Moving party
to give notice.
Dated: February 2,
2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit.
Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org