Fear Not Law Articles: Ritchey v. Continental Ins. Co.

Ritchey v

Ritchey v. Continental Ins. Co.

Filed 2/13/07 Ritchey v. Continental Ins. Co. CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JOE RITCHEY,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

H028576

(Santa Cruz County

Super. Ct. No. 144170)

Plaintiff Joe Ritchey appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate an arbitration award entered in a dispute with his uninsured motorist insurance carrier, defendant Continental Insurance Company.[1] Plaintiff contends that the court erred when, on the eve of arbitration, it ordered him to pay half of the arbitrator's fee. He further contends that the court erred when it refused to vacate the arbitration award based upon the supposed error in requiring him to pay this fee. We are unable to reach the merits of plaintiff's contentions because the order directing payment was a collateral order from which an immediate appeal would have lain. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to review it on appeal from the order denying his petition to vacate, and the appeal must be dismissed insofar as it concerns that order. Nor can error in the denial of his petition to vacate be predicated on supposed error in an earlier, appealable order from which no relief was sought by appeal or otherwise. Accordingly, to the extent we have appellate jurisdiction, the orders appealed from will be affirmed.

Background

The appellate record fails to disclose much of the potentially pertinent history of this lawsuit. The earliest pleading in the record is a petition filed by defendant on June 2, 2003, to compel arbitration. In it, defendant alleged that it had issued a policy to plaintiff providing uninsured motorist coverage and calling for arbitration in the event of a disputed claim under that coverage. It was further alleged that such a dispute had arisen but that plaintiff â€

Description	Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate an arbitration award entered in a dispute with his uninsured motorist insurance carrier, defendant Continental Insurance Company. Plaintiff contends that the court erred when, on the eve of arbitration, it ordered him to pay half of the arbitrator's fee. Appelllant further contends that the court erred when it refused to vacate the arbitration award based upon the supposed error in requiring him to pay this fee. Court unable to reach the merits of plaintiff's contentions because the order directing payment was a collateral order from which an immediate appeal would have lain. As a result, court lack jurisdiction to review it on appeal from the order denying his petition to vacate, and the appeal must be dismissed insofar as it concerns that order. Nor can error in the denial of his petition to vacate be predicated on supposed error in an earlier, appealable order from which no relief was sought by appeal or otherwise. Accordingly, to the extent court have appellate jurisdiction, the orders appealed from affirmed.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.