Porter

Porter v. Golden Eagle Insurance

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 291·43 Cal. App. 4th 1282·51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 338·96 Daily Journal DAR 3549·61 Cal. Comp. Cases 243
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 27, 1996C020609California3,370 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

In Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 183 , 832 P.2d 899 ] our Supreme Court held that courts may review arbitration awards only pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 (all undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure), which does not permit judicial scrutiny of the correctness of arbitrators’ decisions. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 28 .) The court reasoned in part that when persons freely contract to keep their disputes out of the judicial system by submitting them to arbitration, the judicial system should honor this decision by refusing to overturn arbitrators’ resolutions of such disputes even if erroneous in fact or law. (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 8, 11-12.)

Because the arbitration award in Moncharsh arose out of private contractual arbitration (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th at pp. 6-7), the Supreme Court there did not reach the question before us now: should judicial review of uninsured motorist arbitration proceedings, mandated by Insurance Code section 11580.2, also be limited to the grounds set forth in section 1286.2? We hold that the…

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.