California Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Clause: No Conflict with 'Service of Suit' Provision

In <i>Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London</i>, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787, 115 P.3d 68 (July 18, 2005), the California Supreme Court held that a disability insurance policy's arbitration and service of suit clauses did not conflict and that the arbitration clause was therefore enforceable. The court in <i>Boghos</i> also concluded that the policy's stipulation that the insured share arbitration costs with the insurer did not render the arbitration clause unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case to the trial court.

12 minute read January 03, 2006 at 10:25 AM
By
Lewis E. Hassett and Matthew A. Barrett
California Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Clause: No Conflict with 'Service of Suit' Provision

In Boghos v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787, 115 P.3d 68 (July 18, 2005), the California Supreme Court held that a disability insurance policy's arbitration and service of suit clauses did not conflict and that the arbitration clause was therefore enforceable.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

How Courts Interpret and Apply the Interplay Between the Bankruptcy Code and Medicare Program Act

The combination of increasing operating costs and uncertain government reimbursement funding continues to place health care providers under financial pressure, and in many cases, financial distress. Given the importance of Medicare/Medicaid funding of claims under provider agreements with the federal government, how courts interpret and apply the interplay between the Bankruptcy Code and Medicare Program Act determines the disposition of hundreds of millions of dollars of claims for reimbursement that support the health care system.

April 30, 2026

AI Transparency: Clear Explanations Matter More Than Disclosure

As AI becomes embedded in everyday business and legal operations, organizations are confronting a new expectation: simply disclosing AI use is no longer enough. A critical shift is taking place in the legal industry: transparency is no longer just about disclosure; it’s about comprehension.

April 30, 2026