Court Opinion

ID: 9582915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:32:45.551742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:45.079211
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I dissent. California has never recognized the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and prior authority in this state is in conflict with that concept. Even if this court should decide at some time to judicially legislate that theory, the facts involved in this case, and the dilatory result, do not justify its application. Finally, there are sound reasons of policy for holding that the question whether petitioners violated the Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17000 et seq.) should be decided by a court initially rather than by successive determinations by the Commissioner of the Department of Insurance (Insurance Commissioner) and a court.
I
No decision in this state has ever forthrightly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and the three California cases to which the majority refer and attempt to distinguish are in direct conflict with that doctrine. (City of Susanville v. Lee C. Hess Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 684 [290 P.2d 520] (Susanville); Scripps etc. Hospital v. Cal. Emp. Com. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 669 [151 P.2d 109, 155 A.L.R. 360] (Scripps); McKee v. Bell-Carter Olive Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1230 [231 Cal.Rptr. 304] (McKee).)1 Each holds that in a situation like the matter before us, in which a litigant is afforded the choice whether to bring a proceeding before an administrative body or to file an action in court, the litigant may choose either remedy, and is not required to resort initially to the agency for the vindication of his or her rights. The holdings in these cases are in direct conflict with the majority’s determination that a court has discretion whether or not to exercise jurisdiction under these circumstances.
*403If anything, the present case is an even stronger vehicle than the cited cases for application of the well-established rule relied on therein. The statutes in those those cases (with the exception of McKee) merely granted the right to an administrative determination or to a court action. They did not contain language like section 17205 of the Business and Professions Code, which provides explicitly that the remedies under the Unfair Practices Act are “cumulative” to those granted under any other laws.
The majority opinion declares that the three cases cited applied “the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, and not the primary jurisdiction doctrine.” I disagree with this characterization of the cases. In fact, all three cases refused to apply the exhaustion doctrine because the Legislature had given the aggrieved party a choice of remedies. As the majority opinion concedes, the exhaustion doctrine applies when the administrative agency alone has initial jurisdiction to hear the matter. In all three cases cited above—as well as in the present case—both the agency and a court had such power, and therefore the exhaustion doctrine did not apply. The majority simply refuse to adhere to the prevailing theory on which those cases were decided, i.e., that it is for the litigant to choose which forum to utilize in these circumstances.
The opinion attempts to distinguish Scripps on the ground that it did not “address the primary jurisdiction question” because it failed to decide whether a court has authority to exercise its discretion to stay judicial proceedings pending action by an administrative agency. In fact, the Scripps court’s holding can only be read as prohibiting the exercise of such discretion. After stating the rule that a litigant may choose the forum in which to bring the action if the Legislature has provided alternative remedies, Scripps declares that “it is not for the courts to add conditions to the exercise of [the right to bring an action in court] which are not imposed by the statute.” (24 Cal.2d at p. 674.) I cannot read this holding as anything but a determination that a court does not have the power to require a litigant to first resort to an administrative remedy when a statute provides a choice whether to do so or to bring a court action.
As for Susanville, which the majority attempt to distinguish on the same ground as Scripps, it holds that the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies has “no application” if the aggrieved person is granted alternative remedies and elects to use judicial means. (45 Cal.2d at p. 689.) This amounts to a determination that a court cannot compel a litigant to resort to the process of an administrative agency if one has been granted the right to sue in court.
The majority state, regarding McKee, that they do not to read the opinion in that case as suggesting that the availability of cumulative remedies bars *404application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine. In my view, there is no other way to read the decision. The McKee opinion recites the general rule of Scripps, and then concludes that because the administrative proceeding and the court action are cumulative remedies, plaintiff is not required to exhaust administrative remedies. (186 Cal.App.3d 1230 at p. 1246.) A party who has been granted the right to bring a court action cannot be compelled to exhaust administrative remedies, if either course is open under the law.
The only case cited by the majority which they claim applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in California is Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65 [276 Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373] (Rojo). However, as the majority must recognize, Rojo refers not to that doctrine but to exhaustion of remedies. There, the plaintiffs filed a civil action seeking damages for employment discrimination. We held that they should not be required to exhaust their remedies before the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, employing reasoning generally used to determine whether a party should be required to exhaust administrative remedies. (See e.g., Karlin v. Zalta (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 953, 983 [201 Cal.Rptr. 379].)
If it should be deemed advisable to adopt a judge-made doctrine of primary jurisdiction in this state, the majority should state forthrightly that they do so, instead of futilely attempting to distinguish cases which are incompatible with the existence of that doctrine.
II
Even if the primary jurisdiction principle should become applicable in California, it would not apply under the circumstances of this case.
The majority state several grounds for requiring the People to bring this proceeding before the Insurance Commissioner. First, relying on the reasons advanced in Rojo, they assert that here, unlike in that case, the administrative agency has “a ‘pervasive and self-contained system of administrative procedure’ to deal with the precise questions involved herein.” In support of this proposition, they cite sections of the Insurance Code that prescribe the procedure for the investigation and resolution of complaints regarding allegations of unfair rates. That is, notice and hearing, proceedings to contest the allegations made by the complainant, and provisions for appeal. But the Fair Employment and Housing Commission in Rojo had similar powers. (52 Cal.3d at p. 72.) I dispute the majority’s assertion that the administrative procedures for challenging rates before the Insurance Commissioner are “pervasive,” for we have found in a case as recently decided as Rojo that similar procedures do not meet that description.
*405Nor do I agree with the second ground offered by the majority as the justification for requiring that the People resort first to a determination of the issues raised in their complaint by the Insurance Commissioner, i.e., that his expertise is required to resolve the issues. Unlike Karlin v. Zalta, supra, 154 Cal.App.2d 953, 983, on which the majority rely, the issues raised by the People are not “singularly within the technical competence of the Insurance Commissioner through the enlistment of agency resources.” The question whether an insured is entitled to a “good driver” discount depends on whether the driver was involved in an accident during the prior three years, and was “principally at fault.” The insurer makes the determination of fault under guidelines issued by the commissioner. (Ins. Code, § 1861.025, subd. (b)(4).) A court in its fact-finding role is at least as qualified as the commissioner to determine whether an insurer has followed those guidelines. (Cf. Gt. No. Ry. v. Merchants Elev. Co. (1922) 259 U.S. 285, 291 [66 L.Ed. 943, 946, 42 S.Ct. 477], refusing to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine because “what construction shall be given to a railroad tariff presents ordinarily a question of law . . . .”) This determination of facts cannot be said to be within the special “technical competence,” of the Insurance Commissioner. It is significant that he makes no such claim in this case.
Once the question of fault is decided, it is necessary to ascertain whether the required discount has been afforded. The majority assert that this determination calls for a “searching inquiry into the factual complexities of [automobile] insurance ratemaking.” I disagree. The issue here is not whether the insurer charged a reasonable rate or one which complies with statutory requirements for such a rate, but whether the rate charged is below what the insurer would have charged without the discount. The answer to that is clear under the circumstances of this case. No determination whether the discount was afforded is required by either the Insurance Commissioner or a court because it is undisputed that the “good driver” discount provisions have not been implemented. It follows that the rate charged is in excess of the rate which would have been charged without the discount.
The majority claim also that uniformity of decision will be enhanced by an administrative determination of the issues raised in the People’s complaint before a court attempts to grapple with “such a broad-ranging and technical question of insurance law.” But the question whether a driver is entitled to a “good driver” discount under the guidelines adopted by the commissioner involves the application of those guidelines to the circumstances of a particular case. I fail to see how uniformity of decision will be promoted by a preliminary determination of the issue by the commissioner since the fault of each driver depends on the facts relating to a specific *406driving record, and application of the guidelines thereto. Those are typical decisions made by a court rather than an administrative agency.
III
Furthermore, there are persuasive policy reasons which militate against application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine in this case.
First, it will not promote judicial economy. In Rojo, we reasoned that a determination by the administrative agency of the issues raised in the complaint would have no beneficial impact on the judicial system because the case must in any event still enter the “judicial pipeline.” (52 Cal.3d at p. 88.) This rationale also applies here. If, as occurred in Shernoff v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d 406, the Insurance Commissioner declines to exercise his jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in this proceeding—as he indicates he is likely to do by his support of the Attorney General herein— the courts will not receive the assistance from administrative determination of the issues which the majority claim as the justification for application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
Moreover, as we also observed in Rojo, requiring the agency to decide the matter would limit the resources available to it for resolution of cases within its jurisdiction. It is no secret that the Insurance Commissioner is understaffed and overburdened with litigation relating to Proposition 103. The Department of Insurance agrees. It supports the position of the People in this case on the ground that the Insurance Commissioner cannot reasonably be expected to respond to all allegations of violations of the Unfair Practices Act, and that requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies would weaken or destroy the effectiveness of remedies granted thereunder.
By providing in Proposition 103 that both the Insurance Commissioner and the People should have the power to enforce the “good driver” provisions, the voters clearly intended that the People have the right to obtain an expeditious determination before a court whether an insurer is complying with those provisions. They did not contemplate dilatory proceedings and successive decisions on the same issue by the Insurance Commissioner and subsequently by the courts. The holding of the majority violates this intent.
Finally, the opinion dismisses summarily as “unsupported conjecture” the claim that prior resort to the administrative process will unduly delay or frustrate resolution of the issues presented by the People. As the majority concede, however, expense to litigants and delay are factors which militate against application of the doctrine. (See United States v. McDonnell Douglas *407Corp. (8th Cir. 1984) 751 F.2d 220, 224; Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. (5th Cir. 1976) 532 F.2d 412, 419; cf. Rojo, supra, 52 Cal.3d 65, 88.)
It is now three and one-half years since Proposition 103 was enacted, and the voters are still waiting for the enforcement of the discount insurers are required to afford to good drivers. The majority fail to justify the significant and unnecessary delay which their holding is certain to cause in the enforcement of this key provision of Proposition 103.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The only California case cited by the majority that even mentions the primary jurisdiction theory is Shernoff v. Superior Court (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 406 [118 Cal.Rptr. 680]. There, the plaintiffs filed an action against numerous insurers, alleging that they had conspired to fix rates. The trial court issued a stay “on a theory of primary jurisdiction, a theory which assumed that for reasons of comity the Insurance Commissioner should be given the first opportunity” to act on the allegations. (Id. at p. 408.) The Court of Appeal vacated the stay order, holding that the plaintiffs were not required to exhaust their administrative remedies because the Insurance Commissioner did not have the power to grant damages, the relief sought by the plaintiffs. In the course of its discussion, the court stated that the “doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not permanently foreclose judicial action but rather it provides the appropriate administrative agency with an opportunity to act if it so chooses. At most, the commissioner’s jurisdiction is ‘primary,’ not ‘exclusive,’ and in this instance he has chosen not to exercise it” (Id. at p. 409.)