BRIAN ZREHIGIAN vs MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY

2026CUPA064277: BRIAN ZREHIGIAN vs MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY 06/02/2026 in Department 41 Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award

Below is the Court’s tentative decision with respect to the matter on calendar. The Court may adopt, modify, or change the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

If you wish to submit on the Court’s tentative decision without appearing, please send an email to the following address by 8:00 a.m. on the date of the hearing with counsel for all parties’ copied on your email: courtroom41@ventura.courts.ca.gov Please state on the subject line of your email: “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative decision is subject to change.

Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is required but not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.

If you are an attorney or Pro Per and your case is on calendar, you can appear remotely by Zoom for Case Management Conferences and Law & Motion matters. You cannot appear remotely for trials or any matter where testimony or evidence is going to be admitted. This court no longer allows remote appearances by CourtCall. Zoom is the exclusive means by which counsel can appear remotely. Represented parties, interested persons, witnesses, and the public at large, cannot attend remotely. You cannot forward the Court's Zoom link to others so that they can attend remotely. Courtroom 41 is open to the public and such individuals can attend by physically appearing in the courtroom. While appearing remotely by Zoom, it is unlawful

2026CUPA064277: BRIAN ZREHIGIAN vs MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY

to video or audio record the proceedings or take screen shots/still photos of the proceedings.

To appear remotely by Zoom, you must submit an email request to the Court by 4 p.m. the court day before your hearing to: courtroom41@ventura.courts.ca.gov, with a subject line that includes “NOTICE TO APPEAR VIA ZOOM.” Your email request must identify the name of the attorney/party who will appear by Zoom and all counsel/parties must be copied on your email request. When appearing by Zoom, you will need to mute yourself until your case is called at which point you will also have to turn on your camera. The court calendar begins at 9 a.m. Assuming you have given advance email notice the court day before your hearing of your intent to appear by Zoom, you may enter the Courtroom 41 Zoom waiting room at 8:15 a.m. on the day of your hearing through this link: https://ventura-courts-ca.zoom.us/j/81985625079?pwd=cHV2MENmWGNLSnJCMlM5Sk1xRk 0vdz09

For information about Judge DeNoce including his case management and trial rules, please visit: www.DeNoce.com

______________________________________________________________

Tentative Decision:

Petitioner Brian Zrehigian’s Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 sets forth the grounds for vacation of an arbitrator's award. It states in pertinent part that, [T]he court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following:

(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. (2) There was corruption in any of the arbitrators. (3) The rights of such party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator. (4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without

2026CUPA064277: BRIAN ZREHIGIAN vs MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY

affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted. (5) The rights of such party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title. (6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. However, this subdivision does not apply to arbitration proceedings conducted under a collective bargaining agreement between employers and employees or between their respective representatives.

Here, Petitioner has argues four grounds on which to vacate the award:

1. The uninsured motorist arbitration award was procured by corruption or other undue means. Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 (a)(l).

2. The Petitioner's rights were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of the arbitrator. Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 (a)(3).

3. The arbitrator exceeded his powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted. Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 (a)(4).

4. The Petitioner's rights were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrator to consider evidence material to the controversy or other conduct of the arbitrator contrary to the provisions of this title. Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 (a)(5).

Petitioner has not shown any ground for relief. Ultimately, the arbitrator found that the Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof that he was struck by a car. Thus, the award was entered in favor of Respondent. Considering the exhibits, there was more than enough evidence to support the arbitrator’s conclusion that Petitioner was not struck by a car. (See Respondent’s Exhibits D-J.)

There is an insufficient showing the award was procured by corruption and/or that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. First, as to disclosure of the policy limits, Petitioner has not made a compelling argument that had any affect on the arbitrator and/or the award. Second, there is insufficient support that the arbitrator exceed his powers. From the evidence submitted at the arbitration, more than enough evidence was presented to warrant the arbitrator’s finding that Petitioner was not hit by car.

3