Motion for order regarding policy limits disclosure
In light of Judgment Creditor’s judgment in the amount of $80,427.85 and inability to date to collect on that judgment, the unopposed Motion for Assignment Order is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that Judgement Creditor is assigned all of Judgment Debtor’s rights to payment due or to become due from third party medical insurance companies from Judgment Debtor’s medical practice until the Judgment Creditor’s judgment, including all accrued interest, is satisfied in full.
Judgment Creditor also seeks an order restraining Judgment Debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the assigned rights to payment.
“When an application is made pursuant to Section 708.510 or thereafter, the judgment creditor may apply to the court for an order restraining the judgment debtor from assigning or otherwise disposing of the right to payment that is sought to be assigned.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.520(a).) “The court may issue an order pursuant to this section upon a showing of need for the order.” (Id. § 708.520(b).)
Here, Judgment Creditor’s attempts to satisfy the judgment have been unsuccessful and Judgment Creditor has no other avenues in which to seek recovery. (Tiber Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, 9.) The Court finds that Judgment Creditor has shown a need for an order restraining Judgment Debtor from assigning the rights to payment. Thus, Judgment Debtor is ORDERED restrained from assigning or otherwise disposing of the rights to payment that Judgment Creditor sought to be assigned.
Judgment Debtor is advised that failure to comply with this order may subject Judgment Debtor to being held in contempt of court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.520(d).)
Moving party to give notice. 106 Ho vs. State Farm Claimants Amy Ho and Albert Avalos seek an order that all Mutual parties, their representatives, and any of their witnesses may Automobile not at any time disclose the policy limits or the amount of Insurance any offsets regarding those insurance policy limits to the Company, Arbitrator in the upcoming underinsured motorist arbitration.
“The statutory requirement for arbitration of uninsured motorist claims is contained in subdivision (f) of Insurance Code section 11580.2 which provides in pertinent part: ‘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 word ‘damages' in this provision means the damages which the insured is entitled to recover from the uninsured motorist, and the statute thus requires arbitration of two issues only: (1) whether the insured is entitled to
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
recover against the uninsured motorist and (2) if so, the amount of damages.” (Weinberg v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1082 (citing Furlough v. Transamerica Ins. Co. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 40, 45–46).)
Claimants contend that, because the statute provides that the arbitrator shall decide the total amount of damages that claimants are entitled to recover from the insured motorist, rather than the amount owed to claimants under the applicable policy or policies, that the policy limits are irrelevant. Claimants contend that disclosing the policy limits to the arbitrator could potentially subtly bias the arbitrator in determining the amount of damages.
Claimants’ contention of potential arbitrator bias is unpersuasive. Further, Claimants have not submitted any authority which has even suggested that the policy limits should be withheld from the arbitrator.
To the contrary, case law seems to presume that the arbitrator will be aware of the policy limits. For example, in Cothron v. Interinsurance Exch. of Auto. Club of Southern Calif., the court found that “the arbitrator's determination that the damages suffered by appellant ‘far exceeded the limits of the $15,000’ was sufficient to determine all of the questions submitted to the arbitrator that were necessary in order to determine the controversy.” (Cothron v. Interinsurance Exch. of Auto. Club of Southern Calif. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 853, 860.)
In Weinberg v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, the court cautioned insurers in future cases that “if the arbitrator makes an award of damages in excess of the policy limits, then the insurer must move in a timely manner, either before the arbitrator or in court, to vacate the award or correct it or risk having the court confirm the entire award upon a motion to confirm by the insured.” (Weinberg v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1085.) While the Weinberg court suggested that the parties could avoid the risk of an improper award by “see[ing] that the arbitrator does not make an award of damages, but instead issues a declaration of liability or of rights,” the court did not suggest that the arbitrator should not be made aware of the policy limits. (Id. at 1084.)
Overall, Claimants have made no compelling argument in support of nondisclosure of the policy limits. On the other hand, disclosure is relevant to prevent a potentially improper arbitration award.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
Defendant to give notice.