|
|
|
Wednesday, 31 March 2010 11:52 |
|
I. SUMMARY In Intergulf Development v. Superior Court (Interstate Fire & Casualty Co.), -- Cal. Rptr. 3d ---, 2010 WL 1052745 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2010), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held that arbitration of defense fees initiated by the insurer was inappropriate prior to a determination of whether there was a duty to defend.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Arbitration and Mediation
|
|
Written by Gretchen Ramos
|
|
Friday, 30 October 2009 09:27 |
|
In Laster v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2009 WL 3429559 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2009), the Ninth Circuit held that an arbitration clause containing a class action waiver was unconscionable even though the clause contained a “premium” payment provision that guaranteed the consumer a $7,500 payment should an arbitrator award the consumer an amount greater than AT&T’s pre-arbitration settlement offer. ) Because AT&T could easily avoid incurring a $7,500 premium payment by offering, in this case, $30.22 to settle, their was no true incentive for the average consumer to pursue an individual claim. Therefore, the premium payment provision did not distinguish the arbitration clause from others that courts have held to be unconscionable.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Arbitration and Mediation
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Sunday, 06 September 2009 16:00 |
|
In Parada v. Superior Court, Case No. G041339, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 2603093 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2009) a California appellate court found that an arbitration clause was unconscionable because it required a three judge panel, which was prohibitively expensive under these circumstances. The court found that the defendant had no legitimate reason to impose this requirement, and thus would not sever the offending provisions. Important factors were that it was an adhesion contract and was drafted with the intent to dissuade claims.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Arbitration and Mediation
|
|
Written by Jodi Swick
|
|
Tuesday, 01 September 2009 16:00 |
|
In Taheri Law Group v. Sorokurs, Case No. B202693, 2009 WL 2507428, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---- (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2009) a California appellate court rejected a petition to vacate an arbitration award because the petition failed to allege facts satisfying the high burden imposed. The petition concluded that the arbitrator engaged in bias, prejudice, and fraud, but did not allege sufficient facts to support those conclusions. Thus, even though all factual allegations were deemed admitted (because of an untimely response), the petition to vacate was still denied.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
