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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
