CRC 3.300 - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Overview: Information on a case related to crc 3.300

HOLDINGS: [1]-Because a general contractor's filing of a lawsuit against a subcontractor rather than commencing arbitration proceedings as required by the parties' agreement affirmatively established the general contractor's refusal to arbitrate the controversy, which was sufficient to satisfy Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2, the subcontractor was entitled to compel arbitration without first having made a demand for arbitration; [2]-A remand to the trial court was appropriate to decide whether the litigation should be stayed, an issue that had been briefed and argued by the parties but not ruled upon by the trial court, and to determine the terms of such stay.

Outcome Reversed and remanded. Procedural Posture Plaintiffs, injured employee and spouse, appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which sustained the demurrer filed by defendant workers' compensation insurer on the grounds that plaintiffs' action for fraud and other intentional tort claims based on defendant's allegedly deceitful conduct were barred by the Workers' Compensation and Insurance Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 3200 et seq..

Overview: Plaintiffs, injured employee and spouse, filed an action for fraud and other intentional tort claims against defendant workers' compensation insurer after defendant allegedly acted in a deceitful manner and denied coverage for an injury which plaintiff suffered in the workplace. Defendant's demurrer was sustained on the ground that defendant was immune from civil liability by falling under the exclusivity provision in the Workers' Compensation and Insurance Act, Cal. Lab. Code § 3200 et seq.. The court disagreed and reversed, holding that an action against a workers' compensation carrier was normally prohibited under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 3601, 3850, and 3852 because a carrier would be invested with the employer's immunity. However, where egregious conduct such as the fraud alleged by plaintiffs occurred, a workers' compensation carrier would lose that protection. Further, plaintiff's claim for spoliation of evidence would also be allowed because it was based on the fraud claim that fell outside the statutory protections.

Outcome The court reversed the judgment, holding that the conduct alleged against defendant workers' compensation insurer was sufficiently egregious to remove defendant from the statutory protection of exclusivity of remedy under the Workers' Compensation Act afforded to employers and workers' compensation carriers.