Brian Prahl was involved in a multiple vehicle accident in March 2016 while insured by with Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Co. with a policy that contained uninsured motorist coverage. The available insurance proceeds from two drivers at fault were insufficient to fully compensate Prahl for the injuries and damages he suffered. Prahl settled with these drivers and then sought to initiate arbitration of his underinsured motorist claim.

Allstate agreed to arbitration on May 29, 2018. Arbitration was scheduled for November 2022 but was continued based on Prahl’s counsel’s unavailability.

In August 2023, Prahl’s counsel contacted counsel for Allstate to reset the arbitration. Allstate asserted that the five-year limitation set forth in Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (i), had expired in May 2023. Prahl submitted a memorandum of points and authorities explaining his position that Emergency Rule 10 extended the deadline to conclude arbitration by six months.

The matter was heard on October 26, 2023. The court denied the petition, and Prahl filed a timely appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the published case of Prahl v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Co. – C099904 (March 2025).

Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (i)(2)(A) provides, as relevant to this proceeding, that any uninsured motorist arbitration must be concluded “[w]ithin five years from the institution of the arbitration proceeding.” Prahl argues this five-year deadline is extended by Emergency Rule 10.

On March 27, 2020, Governor Newsom issued an executive order acknowledging that ‘ “the Judicial Branch retains extensive authority, statutory and otherwise, to manage its own operations as it deems appropriate to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 . . . .” (Exec. Order No. N-38-20.) “The order suspended any limitations in Government Code section 68115 or any other provision of law that limited the Judicial Council’s ability to issue emergency orders or rules, and suspended statutes that may be inconsistent with rules the Judicial Council may adopt.”

On April 6, 2020, the Judicial Council issued various emergency rules. Among those was Emergency Rule 10, which provided: “Notwithstanding any other law, including Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, for all civil actions filed on or before April 6, 2020, the time in which to bring the action to trial is extended by six months for a total of five years and six months.”

Prahl contends an uninsured motorist arbitration is a “civil action” to which Emergency Rule 10 applies.

The rules applicable to interpretation of the rules of court are similar to those governing statutory construction. [Citation.] Under those rules of construction, the primary objective is to determine the drafters’ intent. This analysis begins with the plain language of the rule.

The phrase “civil action” is plain and not reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. In context, the term “civil action” unambiguously refers to a court action. The Code of Civil Procedure defines an “action” as “an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 22).

Courts have explained that arbitration is an “alternative” to a civil action. (Leshane v. Tracy VW, Inc. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 159, 164-165; accord Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. Browne George Ross LLP (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 749, 767 [“[A] party to an arbitration agreement may elect to initiate a civil action, rather than an arbitration proceeding”].).

Prahl relies on the general definitions set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 1.6. However the Court of Appeal noted that it “does not appear that these definitions alter what is otherwise a settled understanding of ‘civil action.’ ” …. “We agree with the trial court that ‘[g]iven Emergency Rule 10’s use of terminology from the Code of Civil Procedure, [Prahl]’s argument that the general definitions found in the California Rules of Court should apply is not persuasive.’ “

“Because the trial court did not err in concluding Prahl lost the right to compel arbitration by failing to conclude it within five years of initiation, we affirm the trial court’s denial of his petition to compel arbitration.”

UIM Arbitration is Not a “Civil Action” Protected by Covid Rules