 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mercury Insurance Group v. Superior Court11/9/1998
Ct.App. 4/2 E019906
San Bernardino County Super. Ct. No. SCV19185
We granted review to address an important question of law: Does a trial court have authority to "consolidate" a contractual arbitration proceeding between an insurer and an insured as to uninsured motorist coverage in the insured's pending action against third parties -strictly speaking, does it have authority to join the insurer as a defendant as to uninsured motorist coverage issues - for all purposes, including trial, in order to avoid conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact? As we shall explain, we conclude that the answer that we must give is: Yes.
I.
Although it contains some gaps and ambiguities, the record on review may be read to this effect.
Following a motor vehicle accident on a rural highway in San Bernardino County, Ronald A. and Andrea Wooster, who are husband and wife, filed a complaint in that county's superior court seeking damages for personal injury , and specifically bodily injury, against persons and entities including: a motorist named Samuel Lewis Hull; Hull's employer, Mountain Top Rentals; and, by fictitious name, an unidentified motorist who fled the scene. They demanded trial by jury.
Prior to the accident, the Woosters had been issued an automobile liability insurance policy by Mercury Insurance Group (hereafter Mercury). As required by the uninsured motorist coverage law, the policy included coverage for damages for bodily injury caused by an uninsured motorist. As also required by the uninsured motorist law, the policy provided 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" - meaning contractual arbitration, which generally results in a binding and final decision. The Woosters presented Mercury with a claim for damages caused by the unidentified, and effectively uninsured, motorist. The Woosters and Mercury apparently disagreed. The Woosters then made a demand on Mercury for contractual arbitration. A contractual arbitration proceeding commenced.
Over Mercury's opposition, the Woosters moved to "consolidat " the contractual arbitration proceeding with Mercury as to the uninsured motorist coverage issues with the pending action against Hull and Mountain Top Rentals - in effect, to join Mercury as a defendant as to these questions - "for all purposes," including trial, in order to avoid conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. The superior court generally granted the motion. In its order, it broadly "consolidat " the contractual arbitration proceeding with the pending action. But it did not "decide " whether to do so "as to . . . trial."
The superior court subsequently diverted the now-consolidated action to judicial arbitration, which generally does not result in a binding or final decision. A judicial arbitration hearing was later scheduled.
Over the Woosters' opposition, Mercury moved for separate judicial arbitration and contractual arbitration. Specifically, it sought an order for: (1) judicial arbitration as to the consolidated action generally - apparently distinct from the uninsured motorist coverage issues - to result in a decision that would not be binding or final as between the Woosters and Hull and Mountain Top Rentals; and (2) contractual arbitration as to the uninsured motorist coverage issues -apparently distinct from the consolidated action generally - to result in a decision that would be binding and final as between the Woosters and itself. The superior cour
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|