Wolitarsky

Wolitarsky v. Blue Cross of California

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 171·53 Cal. App. 2d 338·53 Cal. App. 4th 338·61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 629·97 Daily Journal DAR 3145
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 5, 1997B087835California3,076 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying a petition to compel arbitration. The underlying dispute concerned the legality of a health insurance policy provision imposing an additional $2,000 deductible for maternity benefits. The insureds argue that the provision constitutes illegal discrimination against women in violation of state and federal law. The insurer contends that the alleged illegality goes only to a portion of the contract. As a result, it argues, the entire dispute, including the issue of illegality, must be arbitrated. The insurer also argues that the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass a claim for gender discrimination. We agree with these contentions and reverse.

Factual and Procedural Summary

Blue Cross of California (Blue Cross) issued a comprehensive health insurance policy to Audrey K. and John Wolitarsky in July 1991. The policy excluded coverage for normal pregnancy and delivery. In November 1991, Blue Cross issued a revised policy which included benefits for “normal deliveries,” subject to a maternity deductible of $2,000 in addition to the standard deductible.

In January 1993, Blue Cross was licensed by…

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.