Non-Signatory to Agreement Can't Compel Arbitration
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/dPwqB52S and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/d7VVJb2k and at https://lnkd.in/defsqAhJ and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
In Alex Weingarten v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd's, London Subscribing To Policy Number IML-0114N0-190029, B321148, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division (March 23, 2023) Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (Lloyd's
Underwriters) appealed from the trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Alex Weingarten's complaint for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent misrepresentation.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Underlying Malpractice Action
In 2013, Adam Levin, Tristen Lazareff, and Criterion Capital Partners, LLC, retained Weingarten Brown LLP to defend them in the case entitled MXB Holdings LP, et al. v. Adam Levin, et al (the MXB action). The retainer agreement (the Levin/Weingarten retainer agreement) contained an arbitration provision.
Adam Levin and Criterion Capital Partners, LLC, filed an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty against Weingarten et al (the malpractice action). The complaint alleged Weingarten negligently represented the defendants in the MXB action. The parties later stipulated to arbitration before JAMS based on the arbitration provision in the retainer agreement. Weingarten notified Lloyd's Underwriters about the malpractice action, and Lloyd's Underwriters accepted the defense of the Weingarten defendants.
The arbitrator found in favor of Adam Levin and Criterion Capital Partners, LLC, and issued an award that exceeded Weingarten's insurance coverage.
The Bad Faith Action
Weingarten sued Lloyd's Underwriters for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent misrepresentation. In the operative complaint (the SAC) Weingarten alleged Lloyd's Underwriters acted in bad faith in the malpractice action by, among other things, "[r]ejecting settlement within the policy limits..."
On January 31, 2022, Lloyd's Underwriters filed a motion to compel arbitration of the SAC based on the arbitration provision in the Levin/Weingarten retainer agreement. Weingarten opposed the motion, arguing: the insurance policy issued by Lloyd's Underwriters does not contain an arbitration provision; Lloyd's Underwriters are not intended, or third party, beneficiaries of the Levin/Weingarten retainer agreement; and the doctrine of equitable estoppel is inapplicable. After a hearing on the motion to compel arbitration, the trial court denied the motion.
DISCUSSION
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Lloyd's Underwriters contended that the trial court erred by denying their motion to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the Weingarten/Levin retainer agreement. A third party beneficiary is someone who may enforce a contract because the contract is made expressly for his or her benefit. The terms of the contract must demonstrate the express intent to confer the benefit.
The Court of Appeal concluded that Lloyd's Underwriters were not third party beneficiaries of the Levin/Weingarten retainer agreement. The retainer agreement describes the scope of legal services to be provided by Weingarten's law firm to the defendants in the MXB action. Nothing in the retainer agreement demonstrates an express intent to benefit a third party-whether Lloyd's Underwriters specifically or any other insurance company generally.
The FAC does not assert claims against Lloyd's Underwriters that are based on the Levin/Weingarten retainer agreement; the claims are based on the insurance policy provided to Weingarten by Lloyd's Underwriters. The FAC, therefore, does not rely on or use any terms of the Levin/Weingarten retainer agreement as a foundation for its claims. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded there was no basis in law or equity for preventing Weingarten from suing Lloyd's Underwriters in court.
Before referring a dispute to an arbitrator, the court determines whether a valid arbitration agreement exists. Thus, the trial court properly determined the threshold issue of whether the nonsignatory defendants (Lloyd's Underwriters) could compel the signatory plaintiff (Weingarten) to arbitrate his claims.
ZALMA OPINION
If the Lloyd's Underwriters wished to arbitrate disputes between themselves and their insureds it would have been easy to include in the contract of insurance an arbitration agreement like the agreement in the Weingarten retainer agreement. Although the Lloyd's Underwriters provided a defense to the malpractice agreement they refused a proposed settlement within the policy limits. Weingarten claims it was harmed because Lloyds' Underwriters failed to accept the settlement, a common bad faith claim. The attempt to compel arbitration was designed to avoid trial on the bad faith issue and, although creative, it did not have a basis in fact or law that the Court of Appeal was willing to accept.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all...
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gV9QJYH; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
Amended Complaint Provides Escape from Anti-Assignment Condition
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc, shttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/proper-inconsistent-pleading-defeats-policy-condition-barry-mrugc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
State Farm’s Responsive Pleading Defeated Motion on Anti Assignment Condition
In Tyra Caire Treadway v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-6834, United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana (April 28, 2026) Plaintiff Tyra Caire Treadway owned property at 7000-02 Jeannette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, which was insured under a State Farm homeowners’ policy.
Hurricane Ida struck Louisiana on August 29, 2021, causing damage to the property. Nearly two years later, on August 9, 2023, Treadway sold the property to M1SRJT Jeanette, LLC and assigned her State Farm insurance claim, including the right to pursue additional damages and penalties for ...
BACKGROUND
See the video at https://rumble.com/v79dts2-crime-doesnt-pay.html and at https://youtu.be/dw0f4goCbxA, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Plaintiff:
Andrew J. Mitchell, an incarcerated individual proceeding pro se sued Pandit Law Firm, LLC, on behalf of a corporation that was controlled by Mitchell who had operated Mitchell Adjusting International LLC (MAI), a Texas limited liability company.
According to the US Attorney:
A Texas man (Mitchell) acting as an insurance adjuster who cheated an Albany church out of millions of dollars paid out by its insurance company to repair its facilities heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018 was sentenced to serve more than 19 years in prison and ordered to pay nearly $4 million in restitution to victims in several states.
Andrew Mitchell, formerly Andrew Aga, 46, of Houston, Texas, was sentenced to serve 235 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and was ordered to pay $2,895,903.01 in restitution to the Brotherhood ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
