Legal Opinion

Chase v. Blue Cross of California

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 23, 1996No. A068199PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CORRIGAN, J.

The court below refused to order arbitration despite an arbitration agreement in an insurance contract between the parties. Blue Cross of California (Blue Cross) contends the court misapplied governing state case law in denying arbitration. Alternatively, Blue Cross argues state case law is preempted to the extent it conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). We agree with Blue Cross’s first contention. Consequently, we reverse and remand for reconsideration under the proper state law standard. Additionally, we hold state law on this subject is…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. ByrdSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Southland Corp. v. KeatingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Stirlen v. Supercuts, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
  2. Vu v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Adir International, LLC v. Starr Indemnity & Liability CoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021
  4. Hoover v. American Income Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  5. R & B Auto Center, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API