Opinion ID: 1394767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jury trial on other issues

Text: Finally, defendants ask us to adopt the reasoning of other jurisdictions which have held that an insured gives up his or her right to have a jury decide only the amount of loss while retaining the right to a jury trial on all other issues. Appalachian Insurance Co. v. Rivcom Corp., 130 Cal. App.3d 818, 182 Cal. Rptr. 11 (1982), is a recent example of this line of reasoning. [10] In Appalachian, the California Court of Appeals stated: This established and court-approved statutory procedure is challenged by Rivcom, as depriving it of its right to jury trial. It must be kept in mind that the only thing that the appraisers do is to set the amount of loss under the policy. Even if the Appraisal Clause is specifically enforced, Rivcom retains its opportunity to pursue its separate civil action   against all defendants named and on all theories stated therein. If the provision for fixing the amount of loss is followed and Appalachian does not pay the amount, Rivcom might maintain a separate action based on such failure. Thus, Rivcom is not without jury trial rights. It simply has no jury trial right as regards the setting of the dollar amount of the loss under the policy, where the Legislature has established a standard form of policy providing for a particular procedure to be followed in one narrow aspect of the claim process. To hold otherwise would be to do violence to a longstanding and well settled body of law, where there is no reason to do so. Id. at 825, 182 Cal. Rptr. 11. (Emphasis in original.) This reasoning is unpersuasive. Our constitution provides that the right to jury trial shall remain inviolate. This right includes having a jury determine all issues of fact, not just those issues that remain after the legislature has narrowed the claims process. In many instances, the amount of the loss will be the only disputed issue. Because we conclude that the alternative reasons relied upon by defendants are not persuasive, we turn to consider whether the appraisal provision is to be construed as mandatory and binding and thereby offensive to Article I, section 17. If we conclude that the appraisal provision is either not mandatory (permissive) or non-binding, the constitution is not offended.