Caro

Caro v. Smith

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 975·59 Cal. App. 4th 725·69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 306·97 Daily Journal DAR 14433·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8972
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 26, 1997Docket Nos. G016245, G016461California5,376 words

Opinion

Opinion

Crosby, J.

saying, are not worth the paper they are written on. Defendant’s lawyers would give the same short shrift to a stipulation signed by one of them to submit a personal injury claim to binding arbitration. They call the stipulation worthless because their client did not personally sign it. They say plaintiff’s counsel acted at his peril in taking them at their word concerning their authority to stipulate on their client’s behalf.

Defendant did not sign the stipulation. But she participated in the arbitration, expressly acknowledging to the arbitrator her understanding that it would be binding; she has never personally sought to repudiate her consent. Equally important, the “true” client (defendant’s insurance carrier) agreed to binding arbitration after acknowledging its duty to defend and indemnify its insured. These factors clearly distinguish this case from Blanton v. Womancare, Inc. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 396 [ 212 Cal.Rptr. 151 , 696 P.2d 645 , 48 A.L.R.4th 109 ], the primary authority relied on by the lawyers to disavow the agreement.

Only after we pressed the issue of sanctions on appeal did the defense lawyers acknowledge they were upset with the arbitration award…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.