Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

April 22, 2004  Issue      By: Raymond Coates

Uninsured Motorist Coverage - Discovery

Daphne Miranda v. 21st Century Insurance Company

Court of Appeal, Fourth District

(April 13, 2026)

There are few cases that have dealt with discovery in an uninsured motorist proceeding.  This case deals with those proceedings, as well as the remedies for failure to comply with discovery requests.

Daphne Miranda was injured in an automobile accident with an underinsured motorist.  After settling with the underinsured motorist, demand was made for arbitration of the underinsured motorist claim against 21st Century Insurance Company.  21st Century commenced discovery.  Part of the discovery was the subpoena of medical records from Kaiser concerning post-concussion symptoms allegedly suffered as a result of the accident.  The medical providers refused to provide the records without signed authorizations.  The plaintiff refused to sign the authorizations.  In deposition of Miranda, it was learned she had lightheadedness and dizziness symptoms prior to the accident for which she had been treated.  She had been diagnosed with epilepsy.  21st Century filed a petition to compel compliance with the subpoena for medical records.  The trial court entered an order compelling Miranda to sign authorizations for the release of her medical records.  She continued to refuse.  21st Century then filed a motion requesting terminating sanctions of dismissal of the claim.  The trial court granted the order, including monetary sanctions.  Miranda appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.  The Court noted that while arbitration is provided for resolution of underinsured motorist disputes, the underinsured motorist statute incorporates the Civil Discovery Act in its entirety with all of its rights, remedies, obligations, liabilities and procedures to assist in the completion of the arbitration.  The Court construed the discovery provisions for uninsured motorist arbitrations as an exception to the discovery provisions for contractual arbitrations generally.  Thus, a superior court has the power to rule on discovery disputes.  The uninsured motorist law grants the superior court exclusive jurisdiction to hear discovery matters arising from such arbitrations.  Thus, having that power, the Court had the power to dismiss the case as a terminating sanction.

Miranda also contended she was never personally served with moving papers because they were served only on her attorney.  She thus argued the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion.  The Court noted that Miranda commenced the arbitration.  The discovery was addressed in a normal fashion to her attorney.  The normal procedure for motions relating to discovery is to serve the moving papers on a party's attorney.  When Miranda demanded arbitration, she acknowledged, as a matter of law, that the superior court had jurisdiction to decide discovery disputes arising from arbitration.  No statute existed which required the motion to be personally served on plaintiff.  The Court declined to impose such a procedural requirement for such motions.

The Court also ruled that there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing the arbitration.  The sanction of dismissal was appropriate.  Miranda had refused to authorize the release of information that was fully relevant to her claim.  Even after the court order was made, Miranda refused to obey the order.  This was defiant disobedience of a court order.  Lesser sanctions would not have sufficed.  A monetary sanction or a stay of the arbitration proceeding would not have assisted 21st Century in resolving this claim.  The Court, in dismissing the arbitration, clearly acted within its powers.  The judgment of dismissal was affirmed.

COMMENT

This is an excellent case for those who practice in the area of uninsured and underinsured motorist practice.  It clearly authorizes superior court intervention in discovery disputes and allows the remedy of sanctions for those who fail to comply.

____
To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission.  Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM.  The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.