Quackenbush

Economic Empowerment Foundation v. Quackenbush

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 714·57 Cal. App. 4th 677·67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 323·97 Daily Journal DAR 11726·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7300
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 9, 1997A072693California5,820 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hanlon, J.

The Economic Empowerment Foundation (EEF) appeals from an order dismissing its complaint and petition for mandate against defendant and respondent Charles Quackenbush, as Insurance Commissioner of the State of California (Commissioner), and real party in interest and respondent the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies (Farmers), after respondents’ demurrers to the complaint and petition were sustained without leave to amend. EEF seeks an award, payable by Farmers, of fees and expenses EEF incurred representing the interests of consumers in proceedings before the Department of Insurance (Department) on Farmers’ applications for certain insurance rate increases.

The issues are whether EEF’s claim for fees is originally cognizable in court under Insurance Code section 1861.10 and, if not, whether EEF is excused under the “futility” exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement from seeking a fee award from the Commissioner in the first instance. We conclude that the court does not have original jurisdiction over the fee claim, and that EEF must exhaust its administrative remedy before pursuing a court action on that claim. Accordingly, we affirm 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.