In Los Angeles Unified School District v. Safety National Casualty Corp., 13 Cal.App. 5th 471, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 546 (2nd Dist. 2017) the court held that California Code of Civil Procedure §1281.2(c) was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. See 9 U.S.C. §1. Under the California Code provision, California courts were permitted to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements when there was a possibility of conflicting rulings in situations where a party to the arbitration agreement was also a party to a court proceeding involving third parties who were not bound by the agreement. The appellate court reaffirmed the trial court’s ruling when the trial court denied the insurance company’s motion to compel arbitration in a dispute involving coverage for a school district’s negligent hiring of several teachers who abused students. In the underlying litigation, the teachers in question abused students for decades and because of this, 26 other insurance companies were also parties to the school district lawsuit. The school district argued that the abuse arose out of a single occurrence. The trial court found that there was a possibility that the arbitrator and the court might issue conflicting rulings and therefore the trial court refused to order arbitration.
CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT DID NOT PREEMPT CALIFORNIA’S STATUTE GOVERNING ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
On behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert | Jul 19, 2018 | Firm News
Categories
- Bad Faith (24)
- Damage Coverage (3)
- Discharged Attorney (1)
- Firm News (57)
- Injuries (14)
- Insurance Law (118)
- Liability (8)
- Medical Malpractice (5)
- Volunteer Defense (1)
Archives
- January 2021 (3)
- December 2020 (5)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (4)
- September 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (4)
- June 2020 (4)
- May 2020 (4)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (2)
- February 2020 (3)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (3)
- November 2019 (3)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (5)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (4)
- January 2019 (3)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (4)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (4)
- October 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (4)
- August 2017 (4)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (5)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (5)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (5)
- November 2016 (4)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (1)
Recent Posts
- AGGRESSIVELY DEFENDING AGAINST AN INSURED’S CLAIM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE BAD FAITH
- MARYLAND COURT FINDS THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR BRINGING A UIM CLAIM BEGINS TO RUN FROM WHEN THE INSURER DENIES THE CLAIM
- NO RELEASE?
- 10th CIRCUIT FINDS THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF HIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL
Learn More About Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert
- Teaching
- Education and Scholastic Activities
- Judicial Law Clerkships, Internships, Boards and Certifications
- American Law Institute
- American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel
- Arizona Insurance Institute
- Professional Recognition
- Books Published
- Published Case Reviews
- Academic Journals and Law Reviews
- Other Professional Publications
- Speaker/Presentations
- Professional Activities

