Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00585, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22BBCV00585 Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
Panos
paul simonian, Plaintiff, v. mercury
insurance company, Defendant. |
Case No.:
22BBCV00585 Hearing Date: March 15, 2024 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to further appoint appraisal
umpire |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff Panos Paul Simonian
(“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Mercury Insurance Company (“Defendant”) failed
to satisfy its contractual obligations as it relates to Plaintiff’s claims for
damages and to follow the proper procedures under the insurance policy provided
by Defendant to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
alleges that on September 18, 2021, Plaintiff’s vehicle was insured by the
policy at the time of loss and that Plaintiff timely made a claim for
damages. Plaintiff alleges that on
September 21, 2021, Defendant created an estimate, which the parties did not
dispute in amount or extent of damages, but at some point, Defendant refused to
pay for the repair of the damages.
The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed
November 18, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; and
(2) bad faith.
B.
Relevant
Background and Motion on Calendar
On December 21, 2022, Defendant filed a
motion to compel Plaintiff to submit his vehicle, which is subject to this
action, for appraisal, pursuant to Condition 2 of his insurance policy. On March 27, 2023, the Court granted
Defendant’s motion and ordered the parties to move forward to choose an umpire
and complete the process contemplated by the policy.
On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion
for the Court to appoint a neutral appraisal umpire proposed by Plaintiff
pursuant to Condition 2 of the insurance policy. On October 23, 2023, Defendant filed an
opposition brief. On October 27, 2023,
Plaintiff filed a reply brief. On November
3, 2023, the Court granted the motion and stated it would follow the procedure
in CCP § 1281.6 to appoint an appraisal umpire. The Court ordered the parties to each submit a
proposed list of 5 neutral appraisal umpires by November 9, 2023 and set a
Status Conference re: Appointment of the Appraisal Umpire for December 5, 2023. At the December 5, 2023 Status Conference,
the Court appointed Lance Coren as the appraisal umpire from Plaintiff’s list
of proposed individuals.
On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a
motion for the Court to further appoint a neutral appraisal umpire. On March 4, 2024, Defendant filed an
opposition brief. On March 8, 2024,
Plaintiff filed a reply brief.
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP § 1281.91 states in relevant part:
(b)(1) If the
proposed neutral arbitrator complies with Section 1281.9, the proposed neutral
arbitrator shall be disqualified on the basis of the disclosure statement after
any party entitled to receive the disclosure serves a notice of
disqualification within 15 calendar days after service of the disclosure
statement.
(2) A party shall
have the right to disqualify one court-appointed arbitrator without cause in
any single arbitration, and may petition the court to disqualify a subsequent
appointee only upon a showing of cause.
(CCP § 1281.91(b).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves
for the further appointment of a neutral appraisal umpire.
Plaintiff states that after the
Court appointed Mr. Coren as the appraisal umpire, Plaintiff sent an
introductory email on December 18, 2023 to Mr. Coren and the parties
counsel. Plaintiff states that on
December 21, 2023, Mr. Coren submitted to all parties a disclosure declaration
confirming that he had no conflict with a party to the appraisal and no facts
that could cause a person aware of such facts to reasonably entertain a doubt
as to Mr. Coren’s impartiality pursuant to CCP § 1281.9. (Kiridjian Decl., Ex. C.) On December 22, 2023, Defendant served a
notice of disqualification. (Id.,
Ex. D.) The disqualification notice
simply states that after Mr. Coren served his disclosure statement on the
parties, Defendant seeks to disqualify Mr. Coren pursuant to CCP § 1281.91(b). (Id.)
Plaintiff
argues that Defendant’s disqualification of Mr. Coren was without cause. Plaintiff argues that in an effort to resolve
the issues, Plaintiff again proposed the following neutral umpires (excluding
Mr. Coren) who are qualified in the automotive industry:
·
Daryl
Johnson – He is a certified independent
Automotive Appraiser/Mediator. He has served as a former Staff Appraiser for
USAA and State Farm Insurance Sub-Contractor for RVEST Appraisal Inc. 2001 to
2022.
·
Maxwell
Janisch - He is an Automotive Value &
Damage Appraiser of Memorabilia & Personal Property Appraisals involving
Value/Damage Dispute Arbitrator/Umpire Automotive Expert Witness Services from
2010-2018. He is the Named Appraiser for Harley-Davidson Insurance Company.
·
Todd
Kennaday – He has experience as an expert witness in over 100 small claims and
Superior Court cases involving claims and automotive repair procedures. He has
extensive experience with the California Department of Insurance guidelines and
requirements. Mr. Kennaday holds licensing as a California Department of
Insurance Public Adjuster, California Department of Insurance Fair Claims
Settlement Practices, Texas Department of Insurance Adjuster’s license and
Certification by the Bureau of Automotive Repairs.
(Mot. at pp.5-6.)
In opposition, Defendant argues that
Mr. Coren is not a neutral umpire because he has a history with Defendant and
its appraisers (specifically Bob Barney who is serving as Defendant’s appraiser
in this matter) such that Mr. Coren could not be a neutral umpire, such as in a
separate case entitled Kasson Hartwell v. Mercury Ins. Co. (LASC Case
No. 23STCP02407). (Opp. at p.4.) Defendant argues that none of Plaintiff’s
proposed umpires are neutral because they have all dealt with Defendant and/or
its appraiser Mr. Barney.[1] It argues that the Court should nominate 5
arbitrators and if the parties are unable to pick an arbitrator from that list,
the Court should select the umpire. In
the alternative, Defendant proposes the following umpires:
·
The Honorable
Norman Tarle (Ret.) of Judicate West ($600/hour)
·
The
Honorable Clay Smith (Ret.) of Judicate West ($660/hour)
·
The
Honorable Dennis Landin (Ret.) of ADR Services ($800/hour)
·
The
Honorable Monica Bachner (Ret.) of Judicate West ($880/hour)
·
The
Honorable Mark Mooney (Ret.) of Judicate West ($880/hour)
(Opp. at p.8.) Defendant has not provided any evidence or
curriculum vitae to show the qualification of these individuals in vehicle
appraisal matters.
In reply, Plaintiff argues that the
standard should not be whether Defendant and/or Mr. Barney have interacted with
any of the umpires in the past as it is inevitable that Defendant and its
appraiser will have dealt with the few skilled individuals qualified to be
umpires in appraising vehicles in the State of California.
In
its memorandum, which argues that all umpires designated by Plaintiffs should
be disqualified, Defendant Mercury misreads the disqualification statutes to
the extent that it could have mislead the Court. Section 1281.9 does not
provide a standard for disqualification, but rather a standard for disclosure.
The mere fact that any of these proposed umpires have been involved in cases
involving Mercury in the past does not represent a ground for disqualification.
For example, the mere fact that this Court has had cases in which Mercury was a
party in the past does not require that this court be disqualified.
Thus,
Mercury’s disqualification of Lance Coren represents an exercise of its right
to disqualify one umpire without cause.
As
the Court has previously noted, the umpires proposed by Mercury are well known
to the Court who respects them, but they have no known expertise in the
valuation of automobiles. Thus, they will need to come up to speed on a
substantive area of expertise that is not within their previous experience
while billing at rates that reflect their value as former judges. Such
nominations appear inappropriate to the Court. These former judges are not
practicing and qualified motor vehicle repair appraisers as required by the
policy.
For
this reason, the Court appoints Daryl Johnson as umpire.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff Panos Paul Simonian’s
motion to further appoint an appraisal umpire is granted and Daryl Johnson is
appointed as umpire.
Plaintiff shall provide notice of this
order.
DATED: March 15, 2024 ___________________________
John
Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1] Defendant argues
that Daryl Johnson served as umpire for several cases involving Mr.
Barney. Defendant argues that Maxwell
Janisch has already been disqualified as umpire in this matter, in addition to
the fact that Mr. Barney is presently engaged as a party-appointed appraised in
another proceeding with Mr. Janisch such that they are in direct opposition. Defendant
also argues that Todd Kennaday too has opposed Mr. Barney as a party-appointed
appraiser in numerous appraisal matters and Mr. Kennaday even recently
threatened to sue Defendant in an email dated October 26, 2023. (Opp. at pp.6-7.) Mercury has not provided
the Court with a copy of this alleged threat.