Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCP03407, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP03407    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Petitioners Cheryl Lyn Martinez and Joyce Robles

RESPONDING PARTY:       Respondent Wawanesa General Insurance Company (erroneously identified as Wawanesa Insurance)

Petition to Compel Arbitration

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this petition.

PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Petitioners Cheryl Lyn Martinez (“Martinez”) and Joyce Robles (“Robles”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed this action in court on September 15, 2022, by filing their Petition to Compel Arbitration against respondent Wawanesa Insurance (“Respondent”).

“On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the response to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists,” unless the right to arbitration has been waived by the petitioner or other grounds exist for rescission of the agreement.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.)  A party moving to compel arbitration bears the burden of producing prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy.  (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)  A party opposing the petition bears the burden of producing evidence of, and proving by a preponderance of the evidence, any fact necessary to its defense.  (Ibid.)

Petitioners contend that they were involved in a hit-and-run motor vehicle collision that caused them bodily injuries and property damage.  (Pet., ¶ 7.)  Petitioners assert that Respondent disputes whether they are legally entitled to collect damages and the amount of those damages.  (Pet., ¶ 8.)  Thus, Petitioners move the court for an order compelling Respondent to arbitrate this dispute, and specifically, whether they are entitled to obtain any amount of damages, pursuant to (1) petitioner Martinez’s policy of automobile insurance through Respondent, and (2) statute.

The court finds that Petitioners have met their burden of establishing that (1) there exists a written agreement to arbitrate as between Petitioners and Respondent based on Martinez’s policy of insurance through Respondent, which requires the parties to arbitrate disputes relating to whether they, as insureds, are entitled to recover damages and any amount of owed damages, and (2) Insurance Code section 11580.2 requires arbitration of the dispute between Petitioners and Respondent.

First, Respondent’s policy provides that, if it and the insured disagree as to (1) whether an insured is entitled to recover damages under its coverage, or (2) the amount of damages, either the insured or Respondent may make a written demand for arbitration.  (Pet., Crissman Decl., Ex. A, Policy, p. 16.) 

The court notes that Petitioners do not attach a full copy of petitioner Martinez’s policy, but the opposition includes a full copy of the policy.  (Walder Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6; Knapp Decl., Ex. 1, Policy.)  Part V of the policy defines an “insured” to include not only the named insured (i.e., petitioner Martinez), but also “[a]ny other ‘person’ ‘occupying’ ‘your covered auto[.]’”  (Knapp Decl., Ex. 1, Policy, p. 14, § B.1.b.)  The Petition alleges that both Petitioners were involved in the January 10, 2022 hit-and-run motor vehicle collision that caused them bodily injuries and property damage.  (Pet., ¶ 7.)  Thus, the court finds that the policy applies to both (1) petitioner Martinez, who purchased the policy and is the named insured, and (2) petitioner Robles, who was “[a]ny other ‘person’ ‘occupying’” the vehicle during the hit-and-run.  (Knapp Decl., Ex. 1, Policy, p. 14, § B.1.b; Pet., ¶ 7.)

Second, the Insurance Code provides that an uninsured motor vehicle policy “shall provide that the determination as to 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.”  (Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).)  As set forth above, both Petitioners have established that they are insureds under the policy issued by Respondent.  Petitioners have therefore established that they may arbitrate the dispute as to whether they are entitled to recover damages and the amount of any damages by arbitration pursuant to this provision.

The court finds that Respondent has not met its burden of establishing that no agreement to arbitrate this dispute exists as between it and Petitioners, or that the arbitration clause is otherwise unenforceable.

Respondent principally opposes the Petition on the ground that it is moot since Petitioners’ claim for benefits was denied on August 25, 2022.  (Opp., pp. 1:1-2, 6:7-10.)  Respondent also contends that Petitioners did not comply with its policy conditions, which constitute a condition precedent for the receipt of benefits, including the right to arbitrate.

The court finds that Respondent’s arguments are insufficient to establish that (1) there exists no valid or enforceable agreement to arbitrate this coverage dispute as between it and Petitioners, or (2) Insurance Code section 11580.2 does not apply.

First, as a threshold matter, the court notes that Respondent does not dispute that (1) the arbitration agreement, as set forth in the policy, is authentic, or (2) petitioner Martinez purchased the subject policy from Respondent, and that the policy was in force at the time of the alleged accident.  (Knapp Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; Walder Decl., ¶ 4.)

Second, the court finds that Respondent’s denial of coverage would not make Petitioners’ demand for arbitration moot.  This denial of coverage instead establishes that Respondent and Petitioners have an active disagreement over whether they are “entitled to recover damages, and if so entitled, the amount thereof” which is subject to arbitration based on (1) the arbitration provision set forth in the policy, and (2) Insurance Code section 11580.2.2.  (Ins. Code, § 11580.2., subd. (f); Pet., Ex. A, Crissman Decl., Ex. A, Policy, p. 16 [an insured may make a written demand for arbitration if an insured and Respondent do not agree whether the insured is entitled to recover damages or the amount of any damages owed].)

Third, Respondent has not met its burden of establishing that the policy sets forth a condition precedent to the right to compel arbitration.  Respondent relies on the section entitled “DUTIES AFTER AN ACCIDENT OR A LOSS” in support of its argument.  This section appears as “Part VI” of the policy, and follows the section on uninsured motorists coverage.  (Knapp Decl., Ex. 1, Policy, p. 13 [Part V, Uninsured Motorists Coverage], p. 17 [Part VI, Duties After an Accident or a Loss].)  This section provides that Respondent has “no duty to provide coverage under this policy unless there has been full compliance” with various duties set forth in that part.  (Knapp Decl., Ex. 1, Policy, p. 17.)

The court finds that the excerpted language is insufficient to establish that complying with the duties outlined in Part VI of the policy is a condition precedent to demanding arbitration.  The policy expressly states that Respondent has “no duty to provide coverage” pursuant to the terms of the policy—it does not state that Respondent has no duty to settle disputes as to an insured’s entitlement to damages, and any amount of damages owed, in arbitration.  (Knapp Decl., Ex. 1, Policy, p. 17 [emphasis added].)

Based on the facts set forth above, the court finds that (1) there exists a valid agreement between Petitioners and Respondent to arbitrate the dispute described in the Petition, and (2) Insurance Code section 11580.2 mandates arbitration of the dispute described in the Petition as between Petitioners and Respondent.

ORDER

The court grants petitioner Cheryl Lyn Martinez and Joyce Robles’s Petition to Compel Arbitration.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, subd. (a); Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).)

The court orders (1) petitioners Cheryl Lyn Martinez and Joyce Robles and (2) respondent Wawanesa Insurance to arbitrate the dispute of coverage described in Cheryl Lyn Martinez and Joyce Robles’s Petition to Compel Arbitration.

The court orders petitioners Cheryl Lyn Martinez and Joyce Robles to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  December 8, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court