 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamilton v. Cooperative of American Physicians Inc./Mutual Protection Trust6/9/2005
view committee were similarly aware. "If the membership Services Department was working in concert with the Claims Department and the OBCRC in such a way as to enable the Cooperative to walk away from a claim in which liability was reasonably clear, the decision to terminate would have been reached, and enforced, in September 1997."
The arbitrators further found that " he implied covenant required Hamilton to provide the information and to provide the time necessary to properly evaluate the claim against him." "Here, the Cooperative was entitled to a reasonable period of time in which (a) to evaluate the factual background of the case against Hamilton and (b) to formulate medical opinions relating to the issues of the standard of care, causation and damages."
Hamilton filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award. He argued that the arbitrators exceeded their powers, that his rights were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrator to hear evidence; and that his rights were substantially prejudiced by the conduct of the arbitrators.
The trial court denied the petition. It determined that " he language `arising out of or resulting from any injury to, or death of, a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another,' found in Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.01(a) , is not applicable to the arbitration." "The fact that a personal injury of a third party triggered a duty by respondent under petitioner's insurance policy, does not mean that the arbitration arose out of or resulted from an injury or death caused by the act or neglect of another. The arbitration action arose out of a contract and the injury involved was purely economic." The trial court also concluded that it could not vacate an arbitration award for failure of the arbitrators to permit discovery. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
The sole issue on appeal is a discovery ruling made by the arbitrator after Hamilton submitted the issue to the arbitrator. Hamilton's oft repeated premise is that he was "refused . . . the right to obtain any discovery." He emphasizes that he was denied "all discovery." This premise, however, is belied by the record. The record includes counsel for CAP/MPT's undisputed declaration that the arbitrators reviewed CAP/MPT's claim file in camera and ensured that Hamilton received the nonpriviledged portion of that file. There are also letters to Hamilton indicating that the non-privileged portion of the CAP/MPT file would be produced. As respondents point out, documents from the file are included in the record. And, in a footnote, Hamilton states that "the claims file contained numerous entries concerning a demand for settlement in July 1998," thereby suggesting that he reviewed the file. Given the evidence that Hamilton did receive discovery, his arguments based on the denial of all discovery are not persuasive.
Hamilton recognizes the limited extent of judicial review of an arbitration award. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blasé (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 6 (Moncharsh); Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal.4th 362, 372.) However, he argues that this case falls within narrow exceptions to the general rule barring review because, according to him, (1) the arbitrators exceeded their powers and (2) he was substantially prejudiced by a faulty discovery ruling. If either argument had merit, it would be a ground for vacating the arbitration award. (§ 1286.2, subd. (a)(4) & (a)(5).)
A. The Arbitrators Did Not Act in Excess of Their Powers in Determining that Section 1286.1 Was Inapplicable
There is no dispute that if this case arose out of a personal injury lawsuit, section 1286.1 would apply, whic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|