Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 23STCP02250, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. DANIEL REISBORD, Respondent.	Case No.:	23STCP02250
	Hearing Date:	October 31, 2023
	Hearing Time:	10:00 a.m.
	TENTATIVE RULING RE: CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’S PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF UMPIRE AND ORDER TO COMPEL APPRAISAL

On June 27, 2023, Petitioner California Automobile Insurance Company (“Petitioner”) filed a “Petition to Assign Case Number for Purpose of Appointing an Umpire” against Respondent Daniel Reisbord (“Respondent”).

In the Petition, Petitioner alleges that “[g]ood cause exists for the assignment of a case number since a motion is needed to be heard in this matter. Petitioner will seek an order from the court appointing an umpire due to the insured’s lack of cooperation. Petitioner’s insurance policy agreement contains Condition 2…which requires the appointment of an umpire when both parties disagree as to the value of a vehicle. Here, Petitioner and Respondent differ as to the actual cash value of respondent’s vehicle. Therefore, a motion to appoint an umpire and to compel an Appraisal is necessary.” (Petition at p. 1:19-25.)

Petitioner now “petitions the Court for the Appointment of an Umpire, pursuant to the terms of the applicable insurance policy and Petitions the Court for an Order to Compel an Appraisal.” No opposition to the petition was filed.

As set forth above, Petitioner “petitions the Court for the Appointment of an Umpire, pursuant to the terms of the applicable insurance policy and Petitions the Court for an Order to Compel an Appraisal.” (Petition at p. 1:21-23.)

Petitioner’s counsel’s declaration in support of the instant petition indicates that Petitioner “issued its auto policy number 040104120285793 to insured Daniel Reisbord [Respondent] for the policy period April 11, 2022 to October 11, 2022…” (Hillier Decl., ¶ 3.) Respondent made a claim of a tree that fell on his trailer on July 24, 2022. (Hillier Decl., ¶ 4.) Petitioner and Respondent are in disagreement as to the valuation of the loss. (Hillier Decl., ¶ 5.) Petitioner’s counsel indicates that the subject policy provides as follows:

“2. Appraisal––Coverages D, E and L: If the named insured (or his chosen repair facility) and the company fail to agree as to the amount, cause, or extent of the loss, each shall, on the written demand of either, select a practicing and qualified motor vehicle repair appraiser. The appraisers shall first select an umpire, and failing for fifteen (15) days to agree upon such umpire, then, on request by the named insured or the company, such umpire shall be selected by a judge of a court of record in the county and state in which such appraisal is pending. The appraisers shall then appraise the loss at a reasonable time and place, stating separately the actual cash value at the time of loss, or as requested, the amount, cause, or extent of the loss, and failing to agree shall submit their differences to the umpire. An award in writing of any two shall determine the amount of the loss and shall be binding on all parties concerned. The company shall not be held liable for any loss or damages unless the company has had reasonable opportunity to inspect the damaged vehicle prior to the commencement of repairs, and in the event of disagreement, a reasonable opportunity to initiate appraisal proceedings. The named insured and the company shall each pay their chosen appraiser and shall bear equally the other expenses of the appraisal and umpire, unless the award is equal to or greater than the last demand made by the named insured, in which case the company shall pay all reasonable costs of appraisal but the company will not be responsible for attorney fees. The company shall not be held to have waived any of its rights by any act relating to appraisal.”

Petitioner states that on August 31, 2022, Petitioner sent Respondent a letter with a market value offer for the 1977 Air Stream Trailer in the amount of $31,348.09, and that Respondent declined the offer. (Hiller Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Petitioner’s counsel further states that “[o]n April 18, 2023, [Petitioner] sent [Respondent] a letter with a settlement offer of $37,601.68 including tax and title transfer fee, less the $50.00 deductible and a $2000.00 deductible for the salvage value. The letter also served as a formal demand of Part III, Condition 2 Appraisal proceedings and a choice of a practicing and qualified motor vehicle repair appraiser so that the appraiser…can select an umpire and proceed with the resolution of the claim. [Petitioner] identified Universal Appraisal Company (UAC) as their appraisal firm and asked [Respondent] to have his appraiser contact them…” (Hillier Decl., ¶ 7.)

Petitioner’s counsel states that on April 25, 2023, UAC sent Respondent’s appraiser Polk Associates, LLC (“Polk”) a letter advising that Petitioner has initiated an appraisal pursuant to the terms and conditions of Part III, Condition 02-0 Appraisal of Respondent’s automobile policy of insurance. (Hillier Decl., ¶ 8.) Petitioner’s counsel further indicates that on May 21, 2023, UAC sent an email to Petitioner indicating that UAC and Polk were at an impasse in selecting and appointing the Umpire, and that Petitioner should consider petitioning the court to have an Umpire appointed in this matter. (Hillier Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. K.)

“If the arbitration agreement provides a method of appointing an arbitrator, that method shall be followed. If the arbitration agreement does not provide a method for appointing an arbitrator, the parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may agree on a method of appointing an arbitrator and that method shall be followed. In the absence of an agreed method, or if the agreed method fails or for any reason cannot be followed, or when an arbitrator appointed fails to act and his or her successor has not been appointed, the court, on petition of a party to the arbitration agreement, shall appoint the arbitrator.

When a petition is made to the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration. The parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court jointly select the arbitrator whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees.”

As an initial matter, Petitioner does not specifically seek the appointment of an arbitrator, so the Court does not see how Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 is applicable here. In addition, even if Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6 were applicable, it provides that “[w]hen a petition is made to the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6.) Here, the parties have not jointly supplied a list of arbitrators to the Court.

Lastly, the Court notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subdivision (a), “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (See also Code Civ. Proc., § 1010, “[n]otices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based.”) The Court does not find that Petitioner has adequately demonstrated the grounds for the issuance of the requested order in any notice of motion.

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s instant petition is denied without prejudice.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50