Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative intent. The question of whether an insurer may compel arbitration of a cause of action under the Act is one of first impression. The remedies provided herein for violation of any section of this title or for conduct proscribed by any section of this title shall be in addition to any other procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law. If any act or practice proscribed under this title also constitutes a cause of action in common law or a violation of another statute, the consumer may assert such common law or statutory cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in such law. This is the provision on which plaintiffs rely to support their argument that they cannot be compelled to arbitrate their cause of action under the Act, no matter how broad the arbitration clause in Cigna's plan.
Respondents cite no authority for such bald assertion.
Needless to say, no such authority exists. The arbitration provision at bar neither limits the liability or obligation of Appellants, nor does it preclude an action by Respondents for damages or injunctive relief. Cigna must establish that all the remedies available under the Act are available in an arbitration. The problem with Cigna's argument is that an arbitrator is not empowered to give plaintiffs the injunctive relief they seek under the Act. App.4th218, the Court of Appeal held that injunctive relief is ordinarily unavailable in a contractual arbitration.