|
P0871 An insurance contract calling for arbitration but containing an agreement by the insurer to submit to the jurisdiction of a court of competent jurisdiction within the US was not ambiguous, because the insurer's consent to jurisdiction applies to judicial proceedings enforcing the arbitration agreement and award; California Supreme Court decisions holding arbitration agreements invalid if they require employees to pay costs that would not have been required of them in litigation apply only to FEHA claims or similar statutory actions, but not to actions on insurance contracts.CitationBOGHOS v LLOYD'S (Conflicting Clauses) 36 C4 495 [See: Moses H. Cone Hosp v Mercury 460 US 1; Ericksen v 100 Oak 35 C3 312; Badie v B of A 67 CA4 779, T/AT 12/98; Boghos v Lloyd's (RevGrtd) 109 CA4 1728, P/AT 9/03]
|
|
