Modification: Nielsen Contracting Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Inc.

NIELSEN CONTRACTING, INC. et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

APPLIED UNDERWRITERS, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

No. D072393

(Super. Ct. No.

37-2017-00001814-CU-CO-CTL)

California Courts of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

Division One

Filed May 23, 2018

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 3, 2018, be modified as follows:

1. On page 5, following the third sentence of the first full paragraph and before footnote 3, the following two sentences are added:

This agreement was subject to certain exceptions, including that (1) CIC was permitted to renew a policy "issued in connection with an RPA in force as of July 1, 2016"; and (2) AUCRA could issue or renew an RPA if Shasta Linen's rulings were successfully challenged in a court proceeding. Additionally, the parties agreed that arbitrations under "an in-force RPA or a past RPA entered into or issued in California will take place in California."

3. On page 25, following the second sentence of the first full paragraph, add as footnote 4 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:

Defendants maintain we should not consider Shasta Linen because its decision was "undermined" by the Stipulated Cease and Desist order. This argument is unsupported. The stipulation reaffirms Shasta Linen's ruling that AUCRA may not issue or renew RPAs absent compliance with the administrative filing requirements set forth in sections 11658 and 11735. The parties' agreement as to certain limited exceptions to this rule and to conduct any arbitrations in California does not undercut Shasta Linen's reasoning. The administrative decision is relevant to our analysis because we have found its reasoning persuasive, not because we are legally bound by its conclusions.

There is no change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

McCONNELL, P. J.