Valley Casework, Inc. v. Comfort Construction, Inc.

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 1068·76 Cal. App. 4th 1013·90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 779·99 Daily Journal DAR 12347·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9603
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 6, 1999D031096California3,350 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

In this case of first impression, we are called upon to reconcile the equitable considerations that arise in connection with a request for specific performance of a contractual arbitration provision, and those equitable factors pertinent to subrogation in the insurance context. Plaintiff and appellant Valley Casework, Inc. (Valley) appeals a judgment confirming an arbitration award against it and an underlying order denying its application for a preliminary injunction for relief from arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1285, 1287.4, 527.) The judgment is in favor of defendant and respondent Comfort Construction, Inc. (Comfort), which jointly pursued the arbitration together with its insurer and subrogee Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale), which had paid $45,000 to settle a third party claim against its insured, Comfort. Valley now contends that the judgment and order must be reversed because the trial court erred as a matter of law in its rulings that both Comfort and Scottsdale had standing to pursue the arbitration, and the dispute fell within the scope of the subject arbitration clause. Valley argues (1) Comfort was not a real party in interest, suffering no…

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.