State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi

Decision Date17 December 1992
Docket NumberNo. B059086,B059086
Citation12 Cal.App.4th 206,15 Cal.Rptr.2d 546
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPreviously published at 12 Cal.App.4th 206, 17 Cal.App.4th 1679, 22 Cal.App.4th 1095, 28 Cal.App.4th 16 12 Cal.App.4th 206, 17 Cal.App.4th 1679, 22 Cal.App.4th 1095, 28 Cal.App.4th 16 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. John GARAMENDI, as Insurance Commissioner, etc., Defendant and Respondent.

Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, Paul Alexander, Victoria Collman Brown, Julie A. Gilman, Katherine M. Basile, Joyce M. Cartun, Palo Alto, Buchalter, Nemer, Fields & Younger, Leonard D. Venger, Barger & Wolen, Kent R. Keller, Robert W. Hogeboom, Steven H. Weinstein, Audrey M. Lyness and John C. Holmes, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Strumwasser & Woocher, Michael J. Strumwasser and Fredric D. Woocher, Santa Monica, for defendant and respondent.

BOREN, Associate Justice.

This appeal is related to the appeal in Safeco, et al. v. Garamendi (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1141, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 621 and pursuant to a request to consolidate the appeals, we have ordered the two appeals to be considered concurrently. In the Safeco appeal, the insurers appealed the dismissal of their judicial challenge to the former Insurance Commissioner's amended decision of June 15, 1990. On the other hand, in the present appeal by State Farm and other insurers, the insurers appeal from the superior court's order of April 8, 1991, which denied their request 1 to enjoin the new commissioner from proceeding with new rate component determination hearings and thus to adhere to the former commissioner's amended decision of June 15, 1990.

The parties in both the Safeco and the State Farm appeals have coordinated their appeals and appear thoroughly familiar with each party's case. Particularly in view of the coordinated nature of these appeals and our extended procedural and factual discussion and legal analysis in the Safeco appeal, a summary opinion in the present appeal is appropriate.

Suffice it to say, as more thoroughly explained in the Safeco opinion, while a state administrative agency which renders an adjudicatory decision, which is final by its own terms, may have no jurisdiction to redecide those same facts as to those same parties after time for administrative modification or rehearing has expired (see Heap v. City of Los Angeles (1936) 6 Cal.2d 405, 407-408, 57 P.2d 1323), the amended decision of June 15, 1990, at issue here was not adjudicatory. Rather, because the amended decision did not address specific issues as to specific...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • August 18, 1994
    ...(1992) 21 Cal.App.4th 1428, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 621, review granted March 25, 1993 (S030921), and State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1992) 22 Cal.App.4th 1095, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 546, review granted March 25, 1993 (S030917). In Safeco and State Farm, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate D......
  • Safeco Ins. Co. v. Garamendi
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 1992
    ...the order under review.4 State Farm and other insurers appeal from that ruling in a related case (State Farm v. Garamendi (Cal.App.1992) [15 Cal.Rptr.2d 546, review granted March 25, 1993] ), which we ordered to be considered concurrently with the appeal in the present case. Both appeals ar......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1993
    ...v. John GARAMENDI, etc., Respondent. No. S030917. Supreme Court of California, In Bank. March 25, 1993. Prior report: Cal.App., 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 546. Appellants' petition for review Submission of additional briefing, otherwise required by rule 29.3, California Rules of Court, is deferred pend......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garamendi
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1994
    ...as Insurance Commissioner, etc., Respondent. No. S030917. Supreme Court of California, In Bank. Oct. 13, 1994. Prior report: Cal.App., 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 546. Pursuant to rule 29.4(c), California Rules of Court, the above-entitled review is dismissed and the cause is remanded to the Court of Ap......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT