MOBILITAS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA v. DANIEL MAEDEL

documents for EEC&D, indicating that it was formed as an entity on November 23, 2021, as a California Corporation, wholly owned by Ronald J Batiste. (See also Decl. of Collins, Exh. E.)

Here, the bank records demonstrate commingling of funds and a lack of separation between Batiste and EEC&D, including use of personal accounts to fund corporate operations, transfers without consideration, and concentration of assets in EEC&D while liabilities remained with Batiste. "Amendment of a judgment to add an alter ego is an equitable procedure based on the theory that the court is not amending the judgment to add a new defendant but is merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant . . . .

Such a procedure is an appropriate and complete method by which to bind new . . . defendants where it can be demonstrated that in their capacity as alter ego of the corporation they in fact had control of the previous litigation, and thus were virtually represented in the lawsuit." (Greenspan v. LADT, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 508, citations omitted.) "The greatest liberality is to be encouraged in the allowance of such amendments in order to see that justice is done." (Id.)

Based on the evidence before the Court, EEC&D functions as an alter ego of Ronald John Batiste and an inequitable result will occur if the judgment is not amended to include EEC&D as a Judgment Debtor. Accordingly, Judgment Creditor's motion is granted.

Conclusion

Judgment Creditor's unopposed motion to amend the judgment to include EEC&D as a Judgment Debtor is granted. Judgment Creditor is to submit a proposed amended judgment within ten days. Moving Party to give notice. Dated: August _____, 2026 Hon. Daniel M. Crowley Judge of the Superior Court

Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 729 TENTATIVE RULING MOBILITAS INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA, vs. DANIEL MAEDEL. | Case No.:

Hearing Date: September 2, 2026 | Petitioner Mobilitas Insurance Company's unopposed motion to stay arbitration pending resolution of Respondent/Claimant, Donald Maedel's Occupational Accident Insurance Claim is granted. Petitioner Mobilitas Insurance Company ("Mobilitas") ("Petitioner") moves unopposed to stay arbitration pending resolution of Respondent/Claimant, Donald Maedel's ("Maedel") ("Respondent") Occupational Accident Insurance Claim. (Notice Motion, pg. 2; Ins. Code Sec.Sec.11580.2, 11580; Evid. Code Sec.Sec.210, 350, 352; Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.7455.)

Background

Petitioner filed its petition in this matter on March 5, 2026, against Respondent regarding an underinsured motorist arbitration matter. (See Petition.) Petitioner filed the instant motion on May 14, 2026. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Insurance Code Sec.11580.2(f) provides, in 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. . . . 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. (Ins.

Code Sec.11580.2(f), emphasis added.)

Discussion

Petitioner's motion is granted. This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident on December 24, 2022 ("Incident"). At the time of the Incident, Respondent was operating his vehicle in the capacity as an independent contractor for Lyft, Inc. to provide rideshare services. (Decl. of Rajazi P.2.) While in the process of being online on the Lyft application, Respondent's vehicle was impacted by a third-party driver named Daniel Hale. The other vehicle was underinsured at the time of the Incident. (Decl. of Rajazi P.3.)

Respondent, by and through his counsel, served a demand for arbitration (Decl. of Rajazi P.4, Exh. A.) The demand for arbitration was made in accordance with the uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM/UIM") provisions of Petitioner's policy due to the Incident. (Decl. of Rajazi P.4, Exh. A.) Respondent has not submitted a declination from his Personal Auto Policy for denial of coverage for this claim. (Decl. of Rajazi P.5.)

Petitioner's policy contains the following relevant provisions: C. Exclusions This insurance does not apply to any of the following: ...

3. The direct or indirect benefit of any insurer or self-insurer under any workers' compensation, occupational accident, disability benefits or similar law or the direct benefit of the United States, a state or its political subdivisions. ... D. Limit of Insurance ...

3. No one will be entitled to receive duplicate payments for the same elements of "loss" under this coverage and any Liability Coverage form or Underinsured Motorists Coverage endorsement or Medical Payments Coverage endorsement attached to this Coverage Part. We will not make a duplicate payment under this coverage for any element of "loss" for which payment has been made by or for anyone who is legally responsible. We will not pay for any element of "loss" if a person is entitled to receive payment for the same element of "loss" under any workers' compensation, occupational accident, disability benefits or similar law.

With respect to "bodily injury" to a "Rideshare Driver", we will not pay for any amounts recoverable under this policy if the "Rideshare Driver" has received or is entitled to payment under any: a. Occupational accident insurance; or b. Driver injury protection insurance. (Decl. of Rajazi P.6, Exh. B at PDF pgs. 45-46.)

5. The following condition is added: Arbitration a. If we and an "insured" disagree whether the "insured" is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or driver of an "uninsured motor vehicle" or do not agree as to the amount of damages that are recoverable by that "insured", the disagreement will be settled by arbitration. Such arbitration may be initiated by a written demand for arbitration made by either party. The arbitration shall be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator. However, disputes concerning coverage under this endorsement may not be arbitrated. Each party will bear the expenses of the arbitrator equally. (Decl. of Rajazi P.6, Exh. B at PDF pg. 47.)

Lyft has Occupational Accident Insurance through United States Fire Insurance Company. (Decl. of Rajazi P.7, Exh. C.) Blue Star Claims is the third-party administrator that handles claims for United States Fire Insurance Company. (Decl. of Rajazi P.8.) The Blue Star policy has grievance procedures for claimants to appeal denials of claims. (Decl. of Rajazi P.7, Exh. C, at pgs. 23-25.) The policy states, in part: When you (as defined above in the policy to mean a Covered Person) submit a claim and that claim is denied, we will provide a written statement containing the reasons for the Adverse Determination.

You have the right to request a review of any Company decision or action pertaining to our contractual relationship and to appeal any adverse claim determination we've made by filing a Grievance. These procedures have been developed to ensure a full investigation of a Grievance through a formal process. (Decl. of Rajazi P.7, Exh. C, at pg. 23.) The grievance procedures include: an informal grievance, formal grievance, first and second level review, and expedited review. (Decl. of Rajazi P.7, Exh.

C, at pgs. 23-25.) The policy requires disputed to be submitted to arbitration. (Decl. of Rajazi P.7, Exh. C, at pg. 20.)

Lyft has occupational accident insurance for its drivers through United States Fire Insurance Company, and Blue Star as the claims administrator. Respondent's underinsured motorist policy with Petitioner states that uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance does not apply to the direct or indirect benefit of any insurer under worker's compensation, occupational accident, disability benefits, or similar law. (Decl. of Rajazi P.6, Exh. B at PDF pg. 45.) Petitioner will not pay for any amounts recoverable under the Mobilitas policy if a Lyft driver has received or is entitled to payment under any occupational accident insurance. (Decl. of Rajazi P.6, Exh. B at PDF pg. 46.) Therefore, Respondent is required to resolve an occupational accident insurance claim before arbitration can proceed.

More importantly, Claimant had a duty to cooperate with the Blue Star claims handling process and provide all relevant, accurate, and up-to-date documents requested by Blue Star to aid them in their analysis and review of the claim. Here, Respondent, through his counsel, has failed to cooperate with Blue Star and has ignored continuous requests by Petitioner for confirmation that they are complying with the explicit language of the Mobilitas Policy by his refusal to confirm whether they have submitted all relevant documents/bills for processing with Blue Star. (Decl. of Rajazi P.9, Exh. D.)

Further, as of April 3, 2026, Blue Star claims administrator confirmed the Blue Star file was still open and in litigation. It was confirmed that Respondent submitted $3,960 in medical bills to Blue Star. However, it appears that Respondent did not cooperate fully by submitting all of the bills since the bills received by Mobilitas totaled over $60,000. Respondent is required to submit all of the medical bills to Blue Star and has failed to do so. (Decl. of Rajazi P.10, Exh. E.)

Allowing the arbitration to go forward without the Respondent resolving an occupational accident insurance claim would violate Petitioner's insurance policy and potentially provide the Respondent with double recovery. Petitioner is entitled to reduce Respondent's recovery for any amount paid under any worker's compensation law, including occupational accident insurance benefits. (Ins. Code Sec.11580.2(h)(1); Bus & Prof. Code Sec.7455(e).) The purpose of this reduction is "clearly to shift the cost of an industrial injury sustained by an employee, as the result of the negligence of an underinsured motorist, from the motoring public (who pay the premium for underinsured motorist coverage) to the employer or workmen's compensation carrier." (Cal. State Auto Association Interinsurance Bureau v. Jackson (1973) 9 Cal.3d 859, 869.)

In order to prevent double recovery, Insurance Code Sec.11580.2(f) expressly permits insurers to delay arbitration of underinsured motorist claims while a worker's compensation claim is pending, absent good cause. (Rangel v. Interinsurance Exchange (1992) 4 Cal.4th 1, 8.) The final version of Sec.11580.2(f) provides for a stay of arbitration until the insured's condition has become stationary and ratable. (Rangel, 4 Cal.4th at pg. 10.) Accordingly, Petitioner's motion is granted.

Conclusion

Petitioner's unopposed motion is granted. Moving Party to give notice. The Court sets a Status Conference in this matter on March 9, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 729. The parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Conference report by March 2, 2027. Dated: September _____, 2026 | Hon. Daniel M. Crowley | Judge of the Superior Court