North Light Specialty Insurance Company v. Juan Lopez, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

 

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner North Light Specialty Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Petitioner North Light Specialty Insurance Company filed this petition to open a superior court file for the purpose of establishing superior court jurisdiction over an underinsured motorist arbitration. 

Petitioner now moves for an order compelling arbitration against Respondents Leslie Vargas and Juan Lopez. No oppositions were filed. [FN 1]

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

A Status Review/OSC re: Dismissal is set for April 2, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.

Petitioner is ordered to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Petitioner moves to compel arbitration against Respondents Vargas and Lopez. This matter arises from an underinsured motorist arbitration. Respondent Lopez was a Designated Named Operator (“DNO”) of the Lyft peer-to-peer application, and at the time of incident was transporting a passenger, Respondent Vargas. The incident occurred when the Respondent Lopez vehicle was rear ended by a vehicle driven by third party tortfeasor Regina Victoria Vanpoucke. This initial collision caused the Lopez vehicle to rear end another vehicle driven by third party Cynthia Morgan Mcinerney. (Denny Decl. ¶ 3.)

Both Respondents settled with the carrier for Ms. Vanpoucke for $250,000 and thereafter issued their own respective demands for arbitration. (Id. ¶ 4.) On or about March 31, 2023, counsel for Petitioner accepted both Respondents’ Arbitration Demands, and mediation was scheduled for November 10, 2023 following completion of some initial written discovery. Mediation proceeded on that date; however, settlement was not reached. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

After the mediation, counsel for Respondents “essentially ceased communicating” with counsel for Petitioner. (Id. ¶ 7.) Further, Petitioner became aware of another civil action filed by VARGAS regarding the subject incident, bearing LASC Case Number 23STCV00360 (this case has since been dismissed).  Petitioner attempted communicating with counsel for Respondents throughout the end of 2023 and all of 2024, to no avail. (Id.)

To use the Lyft Platform, each respondent agreed to the Lyft Terms of Service. The Terms of Service contain a broad arbitration provision that provides “ALL DISPUTES AND CLAIMS BETWEEN US…SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION SOLELY BETWEEN YOU AND LYFT.” (Denny Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 17.) 

In addition, North Light’s UIM policy provides that “[i]f we and an ‘insured’ disagree whether the ‘insured’ is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or driver of an ‘uninsured motor vehicle’ or do not agree as to the amount of damages that are recoverable by that ‘insured,’ the disagreement will be settled by arbitration.” (Denny Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. B, ¶ 5(a).) Coverage flows to Respondents through the provision that defines an “insured” as “anyone for damages he or she is entitled to recover because of ‘bodily injury’ sustained by another ‘insured.’” (Denny Decl., Exh. B, “CALIFORNIA UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE – BODILY INJURY”, ¶ B(2)(b).) 

Therefore, Petitioner has met its burden to establish the existence of an agreement to arbitrate the dispute. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

A Status Review/OSC re: Dismissal is set for April 2, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   April 2, 2025 ___________________________________

FN 1-   Petitioner served the initial “Petition to Open A Superior Court File” on the Respondents’ attorneys by “substitute service” on October 2, 2024. (See 10/02/24 Proof of Service.) For the instant motion to compel arbitration, Petitioner served the motion on Respondents’ attorneys electronically on February 11, 2025. (See 02/11/25 Proof of Service.)