UMPOC vs PROGRESSIVE, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

Defendants Jeffrey Fowler (“Fowler”) and Drive Insurance Company’s (“Drive”) motion to compel arbitration/stay litigation pursuant to California Insurance Code section 11580.2 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 is ruled upon as follows.

In the operative first amended complaint, Plaintiff Celia Carina Umpoc (“Plaintiff”)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021125: UMPOC vs PROGRESSIVE, et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration / Stay Litigation [CA INS. Code 11580.2; CCP 1281.2] in Department 8C

alleges causes of action against Defendant Progressive Claims for breach of contract breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief, a cause of action against Fowler for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a cause of action against Progressive Claims and Fowler for Violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

The lawsuit alleges purportedly bad faith acts taken against Plaintiff by her automobile insurer and insurance representative Fowler, in procuring an unfair oral agreement to settle Plaintiff’s claims for damages within 48 hours of a hit and run collision that was covered by her uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage.

“Progressive is the generic name for a number of insurers, including Drive Insurance Company.” (Memorandum, 1:11-12.)

Fowler and Drive now bring a motion “to compel arbitration/stay litigation pursuant to California Insurance Code section 11580.2 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2.” (Notice, 1:24-25.)

Fowler and Drive explain, “Neither side contends that UM arbitration applies to bad faith claims. Neither side contends that proceeding with arbitration will preclude any bad faith claim. Drive contends California law and the terms of the policy require that UM arbitration be completed before Plaintiff Umpoc proceeds to litigate her bad faith claim.” (Reply, 1:22-25.)

In the moving papers, Drive and Fowler argue that the California Uninsured Motorist Statute creates an obligation to arbitrate the amount of damages in an uninsured motorist claim. California law establishes that, as a matter of law, that right cannot be waived by either party. They seek an order that the arbitration of the UM claim be completed before Plaintiff’s action for bad faith and related causes of action move forward in court.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and argues that Defendants waived their right to arbitrate by intentionally relinquishing that right by standing on the release and making the unequivocal statement that the matter had concluded, coupled with attempts to enforce the terms of the release. (Opposition, 8:3-5.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021125: UMPOC vs PROGRESSIVE, et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration / Stay Litigation [CA INS. Code 11580.2; CCP 1281.2] in Department 8C

Though not explicitly argued by Plaintiff, crucially, the evidence before the Court indicates there is no open UM claim to compel to arbitration. This issue is dispositive to the motion.

Drive acknowledges that on July 14, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel presented a claim to Drive Insurance and that Fowler, Drive' s employee, responded that Drive had settled with Plaintiff and 'closed the BI portion of the claim'. He sent an email advising 'Progressive considers UMBI closed', and advised that Progressive had an audio recording of the release, which he had sent to the Plaintiffs counsel's office. (Decl. Smith, ¶2.)

After this action for bad faith was filed, Drive attempted to rescind its agreement with Plaintiff to settle her claims. Counsel states, “On December 23, 2025, I confirmed that Progressive would no longer stand on the oral release it had reached with the Plaintiff; on December 29, 2025, I suggested that the parties regard the release as rescinded and proceed to arbitration. Plaintiff's counsel rejected that proposal the same day.” (Decl. Smith, ¶ 3, emphasis added.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1689(a), “A contract may be rescinded if all the parties thereto consent.” A party to an agreement may only unilaterally rescind the agreement under certain circumstances which do not appear to be present here. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1689(b).)

Drive submits no evidence to support the assertion that the oral settlement agreement was rescinded, or that there remains an open UM claim to compel to arbitration. The only claims at issue in this action relate to Defendants’ asserted bad faith in obtaining that settlement agreement.

The Court has reviewed the cases cited by Defendants. None of the cases relied upon by Defendants compelling a UM matter to arbitration involved a situation, as here, where a settlement agreement as to the UM claim has already been offered and accepted.

As the UM matter has been settled, and the parties agree that the claims at issue in the complaint in this action are not subject to arbitration, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to show that a valid arbitration exists as to the claims at issue.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021125: UMPOC vs PROGRESSIVE, et al. 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration / Stay Litigation [CA INS. Code 11580.2; CCP 1281.2] in Department 8C

Disposition

Drive and Fowler’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED in its entirety.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.