Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCP01253, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP01253    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On April 18, 2024, Petitioner Danielle Palivos (“Petitioner”) filed a “Petition to Compel Arbitration and for Appointment of a Neutral Arbitrator” against Respondent State Farm Insurance Co. in this action.

Petitioner now seeks an “order compelling arbitration and for appointment of a neutral [sic]…” The petition is unopposed.

Discussion

In support of the petition, Petitioner cites to Insurance Code section 11580.2.

The Court notes that “Insurance Code section 11580.2 requires insurers to provide coverage for bodily injury or wrongful death caused by uninsured motorists. Subdivision (f) of this statute provides that if the insurer and the insured cannot agree whether the insured is legally entitled to recover damages from an uninsured motorist and the amount of such damages, those issues shall be determined by arbitration.” (Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1190, 1193.)

Petitioner cites to Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f), which provides in part as follows:

“The policy or an endorsement added thereto 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. The arbitration shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator. An award or a judgment confirming an award shall not be conclusive on any party in any action or proceeding between (i) the insured, his or her insurer, his or her legal representative, or his or her heirs and (ii) the uninsured motorist to recover damages arising out of the accident upon which the award is based. If the insured has or may have rights to benefits, other than nonoccupational disability benefits, under any workers’ compensation law, the arbitrator shall not proceed with the arbitration until the insured’s physical condition is stationary and ratable. In those cases in which the insured claims a permanent disability, the claims shall, unless good cause be shown, be adjudicated by award or settled by compromise and release before the arbitration may proceed. Any demand or petition for arbitration shall contain a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating whether (i) the insured has a workers’ compensation claim; (ii) the claim has proceeded to findings and award or settlement on all issues reasonably contemplated to be determined in that claim; and (iii) if not, what reasons amounting to good cause are grounds for the arbitration to proceed immediately. The arbitration shall be deemed to be a proceeding and the hearing before the arbitrator shall be deemed to be the trial of an issue therein for purposes of issuance of a subpoena by an attorney of a party to the arbitration under Section 1985 of the Code of Civil Procedure…” (Emphasis added.)

In the instant petition, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he underinsured motorist endorsement in respondent’s policy states that Petitioner is required to File [sic] Petition to Compel Appointment of an Arbitrator and to Compel Arbitration in accordance with CCP 51280 et. seq.” (Petition at p. 6:22-26.) However, Petitioner does not appear to provide any evidence in support of this assertion. Petitioner does not provide evidence of Petitioner’s policy, or any arbitration provision in any such policy. (See Weinstein Declaration.)

In Bouton v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co., supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 1199, the California Supreme Court cited to Freeman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 473, stating that in that case, the Court “noted that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 requires a court to examine an arbitration agreement to determine whether there is a duty to arbitrate the controversy. (Freeman, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 480.) We concluded that section 11580.2, subdivision (f) requires the parties to arbitrate the narrow issues of whether the insured is entitled to recover damages from the uninsured or underinsured motorist, and if so, the amount of those damages. (Freeman, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 480.) We acknowledged the strong public policy favoring arbitration, but stated that there is no policy compelling persons to accept arbitration of controversies which they have not agreed to arbitrate and which no statute has made arbitrable.” (Internal quotations omitted.)

In addition, Petitioner relies on Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f), which, as set forth above, provides in part that “[a]ny demand or petition for arbitration shall contain a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating whether (i) the insured has a workers’ compensation claim; (ii) the claim has proceeded to findings and award or settlement on all issues reasonably contemplated to be determined in that claim; and (iii) if not, what reasons amounting to good cause are grounds for the arbitration to proceed immediately.” (Ins. Code, § 11580.2, subd. (f).) It does not appear that Petitioner has provided any of this information.

Lastly, Petitioner requests that the Court “appoint a neutral arbitrator.” (Petition at p. 7:2.) However, Petitioner does not appear to cite any legal authority in support of such request.

In light of the foregoing, the Court does not find that Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the Court to compel arbitration and appoint a neutral arbitrator.

Conclusion

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

Petitioner is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED:  July 9, 2024                                    ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court