A legal battle over an uninsured motorist claim has taken a significant turn, with the appellate court siding with the plaintiff and ordering arbitration. This case was filed by Lamonte Fuller against CSAA Insurance Exchange in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, on July 26, 2024.
The dispute centers around an incident that occurred on December 28, 2022, when Fuller claimed he was run off the road by an unknown driver, resulting in significant injuries. Fuller had an uninsured motorist policy with CSAA Insurance Exchange, which included an arbitration provision as mandated by Insurance Code section 11580.2. This provision requires disputes over whether the insured is entitled to recover damages from an uninsured motorist to be resolved through arbitration if not agreed upon by both parties.
Fuller filed a petition to compel arbitration after CSAA denied his claim on the grounds that there was no physical contact between his vehicle and the other vehicle involved in the incident—a necessary condition under the policy for establishing that the other driver was uninsured. The trial court initially sided with CSAA, stating that the issue of physical contact was not covered by the arbitration provision. However, Fuller appealed this decision.
In reversing the trial court's order, the appellate court cited precedent from Orpustan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., which established that issues like physical contact should indeed be arbitrated under similar insurance policies. The appellate court emphasized that determining whether there was physical contact is integral to resolving whether Fuller is entitled to recover damages from the uninsured motorist.
The court's opinion detailed how Fuller's insurance policy aligns with section 11580.2's requirements and mandates arbitration for disputes over liability and damages arising from accidents involving uninsured motorists. The judges argued that allowing a court to decide on physical contact before arbitration would undermine the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of arbitration as a dispute resolution method.
Fuller contends that CSAA’s refusal to arbitrate breaches their agreement and violates section 11580.2 of the Insurance Code, which aims to provide prompt resolution through arbitration rather than prolonged litigation. He seeks relief in the form of compelled arbitration according to their insurance policy terms and reimbursement for costs incurred during this legal process.
The case will now return to trial court with instructions to grant Fuller's petition for arbitration as per his insurance policy's provisions.
Attorneys representing Lamonte Fuller are expected to continue advocating for his rights under California’s insurance laws while those representing CSAA Insurance Exchange may consider further legal strategies following this setback.
Case ID: C098904