Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCP00237, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCP00237    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Motion on Calendar

On May 24, 2024, Petitioners Srbui Khorozyan and Sarkis Antonyan (collectively

“Petitioners”) filed the instant petition against Respondent American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (“Respondent”) to open a superior court file for the purpose of establishing superior court jurisdiction over an underinsured motorist arbitration matter. According to the petition, “[t]his action is proceeding by way of a binding arbitration pursuant to underinsured provisions of the insurance policy as between Petitioners and Respondent, which policy was in full force and effect on June 5, 2021, the date of the underlying accident.” (Pet. at p. 1:19-21.)

            On June 20, 2024, Respondent filed a response to the petition.

            As of December 3, 2024, no reply has been filed.

DISCUSSION

A.    Applicable Law/Legal Standard

            “A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.) “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.2, subds. (a), (b).)

            “The policy or an endorsement added thereto shall provide that the determination of 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. The arbitration shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator.” (Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).) “Any proper court to which application is first made by either the insured or the insurer . . . for any discovery or other relief or remedy, shall thereafter be the only court to which either of the parties shall make any applications under . . . the Code of Civil Procedure with respect to the same accident, subject, however, to the right of the court to grant a change of venue after a hearing upon notice, upon any of the grounds upon which change of venue might be granted in an action filed in the superior court.” (Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f)(2).)

B.     Analysis

Petitioners seek an order that the Court take this matter under its jurisdiction for purposes of determining discovery motions and/or motions to compel the appointment of an arbitrator and arbitration competition date. (Pet. at p. 2:1-4.)

In response to the petition, Respondent admits that there is a policy of written insurance that was issued by Respondent to Petitioner Sarkis Antonyan with coverage for uninsured and underinsured motorist bodily injury, and Respondent admits that such policy provides for arbitration of controversies as to whether a claimant is an “insured,” whether that “insured” is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or driver of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle, and the amount of damages that are recoverable by that insured. (Response, ¶ 1.) Respondent lacks sufficient information as to whether Petitioners were involved in an accident on June 5, 2021, as well as to whether the owner or operator of the adverse vehicle allegedly involved in that accident was uninsured or underinsured, and therefore denies such allegations at this time. (Response, ¶ 2.) Respondent indicates that it does not believe this Court is the appropriate venue for the issues pled at this time because, under the policy, there are conditions precedent to a claim for uninsured or underinsured motorist bodily injury benefits which Petitioners have not complied. (Response, ¶ 5.)

Further, Respondent indicates that it disagrees with the allegation of the petition that this Court has a legal duty to determine discovery motions and motions to compel the appointment of an arbitrator and arbitration completion date because the policy expressly provides that “the arbitration shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator” and provides further that the only issue reserved to the Court is to determine disputes concerning coverage under the policy. (Response, ¶ 6.) The response also sets forth 36 affirmative defenses.

The Court notes that the response to the petition does not set forth any citations to legal authority as to why this Court should not bring this matter under its jurisdiction. Given that it appears that Petitioners, in part, seek to compel arbitration, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the instant petition. Respondent has presented no evidence of the policy terms in the form of a declaration or exhibits.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Petitioners’ Petition to Open Superior Court File for the Purpose of Establishing Superior Court Jurisdiction Over Underinsured Motorist Arbitration Matter is GRANTED.   

            Petitioners shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  December 6, 2024                                      ___________________________

                                                                              John Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court