Alexander

Filed 9/23/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

FRANCES MARC ALEXANDER et al., B239840

Plaintiffs and Respondents. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC460992) v.

FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

INC., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants,

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carl J. West, Judge. Affirmed.

Barger & Wolen, Steven H. Weinstein and Peter Sindhuphak, for Defendants and Appellants Farmers Insurance Company and Farmers Insurance Exchange.

Kerr & Wagstaffe, Michael Von Loewenfeldt, Ivo Labar and Kelly Corcoran, for Plaintiffs and Respondents Frances Marc Alexander, et al.

__________________________________ Frances Marc Alexander and Thomas and Anna Downie (Respondents) brought a class action lawsuit against Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.1 and Fire Insurance Exchange alleging illegal adjusting practices. In particular, Respondents alleged that Farmers failed to comply with the method for determining actual cash value set forth in the Insurance Code2 for a partial loss in a fire. Farmers moved to compel an appraisal of the…

*1185 Opinion

Frances Marc Alexander and Thomas and Anna Downie (Respondents) brought a class action lawsuit against Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., 1 and Fire Insurance Exchange alleging illegal adjusting practices. In particular, Respondents alleged that Farmers failed to comply with the method for determining actual cash value set forth in the Insurance Code 2 for a partial loss in a fire. Farmers moved to compel an appraisal of Respondents’ claims, contending that the dispute centered on the value of Respondents’ loss. The trial court denied Farmers’s motion without prejudice to renewing it at a later stage of the litigation. We affirm the trial court’s ruling.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Respondents were insured under Farmers homeowners policies when they each suffered partial losses to their homes and personal belongings due to fire in 2009 and 2010. They submitted property claims to Farmers, identifying the damaged property and the estimated actual cash value of each item. Respondents disputed Farmers’s adjustment of their claims, complaining that Farmers’s method of calculating depreciation was illegal under the Insurance Code.

I. Relevant Provisions of the…

I respectfully dissent, because I conclude the appraisal Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., has demanded under the insurance contract and the statute may not be deferred while the trial court resolves legal issues that cannot be decided by the appraisers. I believe the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Farmers’s motion to compel an appraisal. The arbitration statute specifies that the court may delay an appraisal only when the court finds that decision of other issues that cannot be decided in an appraisal may make the appraisal unnecessary. No such finding was made or could reasonably be made in this case. Moreover, even if the Kirkwood and Doan 1 cases are correct that appraisal may be deferred for a declaratory judgment on statutory interpretation issues, there are none in this case; the issues are factual ones about whether Farmers does what Insurance Code section 2051 (all further section references are to this code unless otherwise specified) requires it to do. A declaratory judgment that Farmers does or does not do what section 2051 requires will not assist or inform an appraisal, as the appraisers are in any event bound to follow section 2051. Consequently,…