Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 24CHCP00306, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCP00306, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCP00306 Hearing Date: October 30, 2024 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/30/24

Case #24CHCP00306

***This tentative ruling applies to Respondent/Defendant Geico General Insurance Company’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Claimant/Petitioner Diane Taylor’s Petition to Compel Arbitration.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Respondent Geico’s Motion filed on 10/1/24.

MOVING PARTY: Respondent/Defendant Geico General Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY: Petitioner/Claimant Diane Taylor

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling arbitration of the uninsured motorist claims of Geico’s insured Diane Taylor with American Arbitration Association.

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Petitioner/Claimant Taylor’s Motion/Petition filed on 10/4/24.

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner/Claimant Diane Taylor

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent/Defendant Geico General Insurance Company

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling arbitration and for an order appointing a neutral arbitrator.

RULING: Geico’s motion is granted. Taylor’s petition is denied.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondent/Defendant Geico General Insurance Company (Geico) issued an automobile insurance policy (the Policy) to Petitioner/Claimant Diane Taylor (Taylor) with a policy period of 1/4/22 through 1/4/23. Taylor claims that she was the victim of a hit and run accident on 3/25/22 after which she made a claim for Uninsured Motorist (UM) benefits under the Policy. Geico and Taylor dispute the amount payable under the Policy’s UM coverage.

The Policy includes an arbitration clause which provides:

If any insured making claim under this policy and we do not agree that he is legally entitled to recover damages under this Coverage from the owner or operator of an uninsured/underinsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury to the insured, or do not agree as to the amount payable, either party will have the right to demand arbitration.

The matter(s) in dispute shall then be settled according to American Arbitration Association rules. One neutral arbitrator will conduct the arbitration. (italics and bold in the original)

(See Mikaelian Decl., Ex.A, p.30; Chavez Decl., Ex.1, p.30).

The AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules provide, in relevant part:

R-15. National Roster of Arbitrators – The AAA maintains a National Roster of Arbitrators (“National Roster”) and shall appoint arbitrators from this National Roster to resolve the parties’ dispute(s).

R-16. Appointment from National Roster – (a) If the parties have not appointed an arbitrator and have not agreed to a process for appointing the arbitrator, immediately after the filing of the submission agreement or the answer, or after the deadline for filing the answer, the AAA will administratively appoint an arbitrator from the National Roster.

(b) If the parties’ arbitration agreement provides for three or more arbitrators and they have not appointed the arbitrators and have not agreed to a process for appointing the arbitrators, immediately after the filing of the submission agreement or the answer, or after the deadline for filing the answer, the AAA will administratively appoint the arbitrators from the National Roster. The AAA will appoint the chairperson.

(c) Arbitrator(s) serving under these Rules will be neutral and must meet the standards of R-19 with respect to being impartial and independent.

(Mikaelian Decl. ¶6, Ex.B, p.18).

Both Geico and Taylor concede that their dispute is subject to arbitration. However, they disagree as to whether the arbitration must be conducted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). (See Mikaelian Decl.; Chavez Decl.).

Therefore, on 10/1/24, Geico filed and served its motion seeking an order compelling arbitration of the uninsured motorist claims of Geico’s insured Diane Taylor with American Arbitration Association and, on 10/4/24, Taylor filed and served her petition seeking an order compelling arbitration and for an order appointing a neutral arbitrator. Geico’s petition was originally scheduled for hearing on 3/19/25 and Taylor’s petition was scheduled for hearing on 10/30/24.

On 10/14/24, pursuant to Geico’s ex parte application, the Court rescheduled the hearing on Geico’s motion to 10/30/24. (See 10/14/24 Minute Order). Each party has opposed the other’s motion/petition and each party has filed replies to the oppositions.

Since both Geico’s motion and Taylor’s petition and the respective oppositions and replies reiterate the same arguments by each party, the Court provides one analysis of Geico’s motion and Taylor’s petition as set forth below.

ANALYSIS

Both the insurance policy and the California Insurance Code require that Geico and Taylor arbitrate their dispute regarding the UM coverage before a single neutral arbitrator. (See Mikaelian Decl., Ex.A, p.30; Chavez Decl., Ex.1, p.30); Insurance Code 11580.2. As noted above, neither party is refusing to arbitrate their dispute. Rather, the parties disagree as to whether the arbitration must be conducted by/through the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

Under the California Arbitration Act (CAA), “[i]f the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed.” CCP 1281.6. Further, the CAA defines a “neutral arbitrator” as “an arbitrator who is (1) selected jointly by the parties or by the arbitrators selected by the parties, or (2) appointed by the court when the parties or the arbitrators selected by the parties fail to select an arbitrator who was to be selected jointly by the parties.” CCP 1280(g). A “neutral arbitrator” includes a third-party dispute resolution provider, and parties can agree that such an organization will appoint an impartial arbitrator. See Jevne (2005) 35 C4th 935, 947-948.

Here, the Policy expressly requires the parties to arbitrate UM disputes under AAA rules. (See Mikaelian Decl., Ex.A, p.30; Chavez Decl., Ex.1, p.30). Those rules, which are incorporated into the insurance Policy, delegate the duty to select an individual arbitrator to AAA and are enforceable. (See Mikaelian Decl. ¶6, Ex.B, pp.9-10 (R-1), p.18 (R-15, R-16)); See Lane (2014) 224 CA4th 676, 686; Peng (2013) 219 CA4th 1462, 1472; Bigler (2003) 213 CA4th 727, 737. Further, it has been held that where an agreement states that arbitration would be conducted “in accordance with” AAA rules, such language means that arbitration would be conducted before an AAA body. See Maggio (2000) 80 CA4th 1210, 1213-1215.

Taylor provides no evidence or authority to support the claim that arbitrators on the AAA Roster do not satisfy the “single neutral arbitrator” requirement. In fact, the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules require arbitrators to provide disclosure information to all parties throughout the arbitration process. (See Mikaelian Decl. ¶4, Ex.B, pp.18-19 (R-18)). Further, the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules set forth a procedure for objecting to an arbitrator, if either party finds it necessary. (Id., p.19 (R-19)).

CONCLUSION

Geico’s motion is granted. The parties are ordered to arbitrate their dispute through the American Arbitration Association.

Taylor’s petition is denied.

The Court notes that Geico has failed to electronically bookmark its exhibits attached to its motion and opposition papers in violation of CRC 3.1110(f)(4). Counsel for the parties are warned that failure to comply with this rule in the future may result in matters being continued so that papers can be re-filed in compliance with the rule, papers not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.