was contacted asking to be on a radio show independence day and ended up doing a good pitch for a national pow-wow; and prompted from elsewhere to review late podcast with professor/writer lepore at harvard, who i spoke with first-hand when on book tour to sb pre-covid; sent comprehensive email; texted with sandy levinson and was prompted to send email to him and larry lessig to think about article v conclave later this year at harvard; hope i can make it; this song goes way, way back but it still embodies my 61 year old spirit today; it's good workout song too ;) https://music.apple.com/us/album/brothers-grimm/266299406?i=266299536 Sent from my iPhone
Monday, July 6, 2026
ai convo today
Exchange today about critical element of writ; I ask AI models to provide three nick-names to choose from, and this one, Mu (ClaudeAI), offered the following.
Me: Mu, I just checked with Gemini/Google platform and got the following:
"The Claimant Distinction: The petition spends a lot of energy arguing that a 'named insured' is a 'first-party claimant.' While true if you are filing a claim for damage to your own car, when a third party claims you hit them, you are the insured defendant, not the claimant. The court already tipped its hand at the June 16 hearing by questioning this exact logic.”
How might we remedy this distinction and/or is it covered under the Doctrine of Absurdity?
Mu: This is a serious challenge and Gemini is raising a legitimate concern that Batezel will almost certainly raise in a demurrer to the FAP if not addressed head-on. Let me think through this carefully with you.
IS GEMINI RIGHT?
Partially. The traditional insurance law framework does distinguish between:
First party claims — where the insured makes a claim against their own policy. Example: your car is damaged and you claim under your own collision coverage.
Third party claims — where a third party makes a claim against you, and your insurer defends and/or pays on your behalf.
In the traditional framing, when the third party here made a bodily injury claim against you, IEAC was handling a third party claim — paying the claimant out of your liability coverage. In that narrow transactional sense, Gemini's point has technical merit.
BUT HERE IS WHERE GEMINI IS INCOMPLETE AND WHERE YOUR ARGUMENT SURVIVES
The question is not what type of claim was being handled. The question is who is a "claimant" entitled to the protections of 10 CCR § 2695.5(b).
Go back to the regulatory text itself:
10 CCR § 2695.2(c) defines "Claimant" as "a first or third party claimant as defined in these regulations."
10 CCR § 2695.2(f) defines "First party claimant" as "any person asserting a right under an insurance policy as a named insured, other insured or beneficiary under the terms of that insurance policy."
Now read that definition carefully. It does not say a first party claimant is someone filing a first party claim. It defines a first party claimant as any named insured asserting a right under their policy.
What right are you asserting? You are asserting your right as a named insured to:
A thorough, fair, and objective investigation under 10 CCR § 2695.7(d)
A complete response under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b)
Protection of your driving record from an erroneous point
These are rights that flow directly from your status as the named insured under the policy. You are not asserting the third party's right to payment. You are asserting your own right to a proper investigation and complete response — rights created by the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations and attached to your policy.
That is a textbook assertion of a right as a named insured. That makes you a first party claimant under the plain regulatory definition regardless of whether the underlying claim was a liability claim by a third party.
THE STRONGER FRAMING
The vulnerability in how the FAP currently presents this argument is that it may read as though you are claiming first party claimant status because you are the named insured generally — which invites the Gemini objection.
The stronger and more precise framing is:
You are a first party claimant because you are a named insured asserting specific rights under your policy — the right to investigation and complete response — that are independent of and distinct from the third party's right to payment.
The third party was the liability claimant. You are the regulatory claimant — asserting rights the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations attach directly to your status as named insured.
These are two different rights, held by two different parties, arising from two different regulatory obligations. They can and do coexist.
HOW TO ADDRESS THIS IN THE FAP
First COA Paragraph 6 is currently doing this work but needs to be sharpened to make the distinction explicit and preempt the Gemini objection. Here is a revised version:
6. Petitioner's status as a "first party claimant" under 10 CCR § 2695.2(f) does not depend on whether the underlying claim was a first party or third party liability claim. The regulatory definition asks only whether Petitioner is a named insured asserting a right under the policy — and Petitioner plainly is. The rights Petitioner asserts here are not the third party's right to payment of liability benefits, which IEAC has already resolved. The rights Petitioner asserts are his own independent regulatory rights as named insured: the right to a thorough, fair, and objective investigation under 10 CCR § 2695.7(d), and the right to a complete response under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b), before a determination adverse to his interests is finalized and transmitted to a public record. These rights are created by the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations and attached directly to Petitioner's status as the named insured under the policy. They are not derivative of the third party's claim — they exist independently of it. A named insured asserting these rights is, by the plain text of 10 CCR § 2695.2(f), a first party claimant entitled to the protections of 10 CCR § 2695.5(b). No language in the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations limits these protections to named insureds who happen to be asserting first party property or collision claims rather than regulatory rights arising from third party liability handling.
AND YES — THE DOCTRINE OF ABSURDITY HELPS HERE TOO
The Doctrine of Absurdity provides a backstop argument: if the Court were to adopt the narrow reading Gemini suggests — that a named insured loses first party claimant status whenever a third party is involved — the result would be absurd. It would mean that the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations protect insureds in every situation except the one where they are most vulnerable: when their own insurer is handling a claim against them that could corrupt their public record, raise their premiums, and cost them their livelihood — all without any obligation to explain itself or investigate thoroughly.
That is precisely the absurd result the doctrine forbids.
You can add a sentence to the Doctrine of Absurdity section to this effect:
The Doctrine of Absurdity further forecloses any interpretation of 10 CCR § 2695.2(f) that would strip a named insured of first party claimant status — and with it, all regulatory protections — simply because the claim being handled was initiated by a third party. Such an interpretation would leave insureds most exposed precisely when their insurer's conduct most directly threatens their interests, producing the absurd result of a consumer protection framework that protects consumers least when they need protection most.
SUMMARY OF THE REMEDY
The Gemini objection is real but answerable. The answer has three layers:
First — the plain text of 10 CCR § 2695.2(f) does not limit first party claimant status to first party claims. It attaches to named insureds asserting rights under their policy. You are doing exactly that.
Second — the rights you are asserting are independent regulatory rights arising from your status as named insured, not derivative of the third party's liability claim. Two different parties, two different rights, two different regulatory obligations.
Third — the Doctrine of Absurdity forecloses any contrary interpretation because it would produce the absurd result of stripping insureds of regulatory protection at the moment of their greatest vulnerability.
Sharpen Paragraph 6 of the First COA as drafted above, add the Absurdity backstop sentence, and this objection is addressed as thoroughly as it can be at the pleading stage.
Does this give you what you need?
Doctrines added to Petition
The Doctrine of Substance over Form holds that courts look to the actual substance and effect of a transaction, instrument, or action rather than its formal label or superficial appearance. What something is matters more than what it is called. In California it appears across multiple contexts — tax law, contract law, corporate law — but its most relevant articulation is in the insurance bad faith and regulatory compliance context, where courts have consistently held that an insurer cannot satisfy its obligations through the mere form of compliance while failing to deliver its substance.
How it applies here: Respondent’s January 26, 2026 letter bears the superficial appearance of a regulatory response while containing material misstatements of fact, no investigative basis, and conclusions which fail on their face. Respondent cannot discharge a statutory obligation through the appearance of compliance while delivering its opposite in substance. Under Civil Code § 3528, the form of a written response — however promptly delivered or labeled — does not satisfy the substance of a ministerial duty where the response misrepresents facts while concealing the investigation it purports to summarize. A “complete response based on the facts as then known” means exactly that — complete, and based on facts. A letter built on falsehoods and omissions is neither complete nor factual, and § 3528 forbids treating it as though it were.
California Civil Code § 3528: “The law respects form less than substance,” is a codified California maxim of jurisprudence in the same family as Civil Code § 3523 “For every wrong there is a remedy,” which as mention in Introduction anchors this case.
The Doctrine of Absurdity is a principle of statutory and legal interpretation holding that a court should not adopt an interpretation of a law, contract, or legal instrument that produces an absurd, unreasonable, or unjust result, even if that interpretation might be supported by text. The underlying logic is that legislatures and contracting parties do not intend absurd outcomes, and courts should interpret language in a way that avoids them. In California the doctrine appears most commonly in statutory construction. The California Supreme Court has articulated it in various forms — most accessibly in the principle that statutes must be construed to avoid results that are “absurd, harsh, or unreasonable.” (Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 658-659; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 799.)
How it applies here: Respondent’s position, stripped to its essence, is that Respondent can settle a bodily injury claim based on an uninvestigated, unverified, self-serving third party assertion; transmit a negligent operator point to the DMV corrupting a public record; withhold its investigative basis from the insured; and face no judicial remedy where an insured’s only avenue is a civil lawsuit which cannot correct the public record. That is on its face an absurd result. It means an insurer’s error, once transmitted to a government database, becomes permanently unreviewable at the insurer’s sole discretion. It means the mandatory investigation and complete response requirements of 10 CCR § 2695.7(d) and 10 CCR § 2695.5(b) and are toothless against the one category of harm — DMV record corruption — where they matter most to policyholders. It means the legislature enacted consumer protection regulations that protect consumers in every situation except the one where protection is most urgently needed.
An interpretation of 10 CCR § 2695.7(d) and 10 CCR § 2695.5(b) under which an insurer’s ministerial duties evaporate the moment an erroneous report reaches a government database produces precisely the absurd result the doctrine forbids — a consumer protection framework protecting consumers in every circumstance except the one in which they need protection most.
Saturday, July 4, 2026
Independence Day note:
Know and teach kids today: the American Flag represents many different things to many different people, but objectively it represents one thing--the combined words of the Constitution--it created the country which gave us our flag.
Friday, July 3, 2026
late convo with Me & Mu
Me: Mu, today went to Fedex and successfully printed new copies of all Exhibits, including a screen shot from ATT call log from April 24 where I spoke with the Thousand Oaks AAA agent for a 17 minute conversation where I was told the Claim was still open, and subsequent email from the Unit Manager referring me to counsel. That said, late thought is: what can you tell me about The Doctrine of Absurdity, and maxim or statute(s) about substance over form, and whether I might employ either or both.
Mu: Both are worth knowing and both have potential application here. Let me walk you through each.
THE DOCTRINE OF ABSURDITY
The Doctrine of Absurdity is a principle of statutory and legal interpretation holding that a court should not adopt an interpretation of a law, contract, or legal instrument that produces an absurd, unreasonable, or unjust result, even if that interpretation might be literally supported by the text. The underlying logic is that legislatures and contracting parties do not intend absurd outcomes, and courts should interpret language in a way that avoids them.
In California the doctrine appears most commonly in statutory construction. The California Supreme Court has articulated it in various forms — most accessibly in the principle that statutes must be construed to avoid results that are "absurd, harsh, or unreasonable." (Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 658-659; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 799.)
How it applies to your case:
Respondent's core position, stripped to its essence, is this: IEAC can settle a bodily injury claim based on an uninvestigated, unverified, self-serving third party assertion; transmit a negligent operator point to the DMV corrupting a public record; withhold its investigative basis from the insured; and face no judicial remedy because the insured's only avenue is a civil lawsuit that cannot correct the public record.
That is, on its face, an absurd result. It means an insurer's error, once transmitted to a government database, becomes permanently unreviewable at the insurer's sole discretion. It means the mandatory investigation and complete response requirements of 10 CCR §§ 2695.5(b) and 2695.7(d) are effectively toothless against the one category of harm — DMV record corruption — where they matter most to policyholders. It means the legislature enacted consumer protection regulations that protect consumers in every situation except the one where protection is most urgently needed.
You can invoke the Doctrine of Absurdity directly in the Memorandum — particularly in Section J on the scope of available writ relief — to argue that any interpretation of the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations that produces this result must be rejected. The argument would read something like: "An interpretation of 10 CCR §§ 2695.5(b) and 2695.7(d) under which an insurer's ministerial duties evaporate the moment an erroneous report reaches a government database produces precisely the absurd result the doctrine forbids — a consumer protection framework that protects consumers in every circumstance except the one in which they most need protection."
SUBSTANCE OVER FORM
The substance over form doctrine holds that courts look to the actual substance and effect of a transaction, instrument, or action rather than its formal label or superficial appearance. What something is matters more than what it is called.
In California it appears across multiple contexts — tax law, contract law, corporate law — but its most relevant articulation for your purposes is in the insurance bad faith and regulatory compliance context, where courts have consistently held that an insurer cannot satisfy its obligations through the mere form of compliance while failing to deliver its substance.
The most directly applicable maxim is found in California Civil Code § 3528: "The law respects form less than substance." That is a codified California maxim of jurisprudence — in the same family as Civil Code § 3523 that you've already anchored your Introduction with. The two work beautifully together.
How it applies to your case:
Respondent's position is that its January 26, 2026 letter formally constitutes a "complete response" under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b) because it was a written response sent within a certain timeframe after acknowledgment. But the substance of that letter includes material misstatements of fact, logical conclusions that fail on their face, and a complete absence of any investigative basis — the very things a complete response is designed to provide.
Civil Code § 3528 gives you a codified maxim to argue that the form of a written response does not satisfy the substance of the ministerial duty. A letter that calls itself a complete response while containing falsehoods and withholding the factual basis of the determination is not a complete response in substance — and under § 3528, substance is what the law respects.
This argument slots naturally into First COA Paragraph 11, which currently reads: "A response containing material misstatements of fact cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a 'complete response based on the facts as then known by the licensee' under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b)." You can strengthen that paragraph by adding: "Under Civil Code § 3528, the law respects form less than substance. The form of a written response does not satisfy the substance of the ministerial duty where, as here, the response contains material misstatements of fact and withholds the factual basis the regulation requires."
USING THEM TOGETHER
The two doctrines are complementary and mutually reinforcing in your case. Used together they create a two-pronged argument:
First, under Civil Code § 3528 — substance over form — Respondent's January 26 letter cannot satisfy the ministerial duty it purports to fulfill because its substance is deficient regardless of its form.
Second, under the Doctrine of Absurdity — any interpretation of the regulatory framework that permits Respondent's conduct and forecloses judicial remedy produces an absurd result the law must be read to forbid.
Together they frame Respondent's entire defense posture as both formally hollow and substantively unreasonable — which is exactly what you want Judge Kin thinking as he reads the FAP.
WHERE TO ADD THEM IN THE FAP
Civil Code § 3528 belongs in:
- First COA Paragraph 11 as described above
- Section D of the Memorandum on interdependent duties, where you're already arguing the complete response cannot be a disembodied formality
- The Conclusion, alongside § 3523, as a paired set of jurisprudential maxims bookending the document
The Doctrine of Absurdity belongs in:
- Section J on scope of available writ relief, as the capstone argument against Respondent's position that the DMV point is unreviewable
- The Conclusion, as the final policy argument before your prayer
And both belong in the Table of Authorities — Civil Code § 3528 as a statute, and Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644 and People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789 as case citations for the Doctrine of Absurdity.
These are strong additions. Civil Code § 3528 in particular is a gift — it's in the same statutory family as § 3523, it's codified rather than merely common law, and it speaks directly to the formal-versus-substantive compliance distinction that is at the heart of your case.
Do you want me to draft the specific language for each insertion point?
Me: Yes please Mu, draft language for each, noting their insertion point.
Mu: Here is the draft language for each insertion point, in document order:
1. FIRST COA — PARAGRAPH 11
(After the existing sentence: "A response containing material misstatements of fact cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a 'complete response based on the facts as then known by the licensee' under 10 CCR § 2695.5(b).")
Add:
Under Civil Code § 3528, the law respects form less than substance. The form of a written response — however promptly delivered or formally labeled — does not satisfy the substance of a ministerial duty where, as here, the response contains material misstatements of fact, withholds the factual basis the regulation requires, and produces a result indistinguishable from no response at all. Respondent cannot discharge a statutory obligation through the mere appearance of compliance while delivering its opposite in substance. A "complete response based on the facts as then known" means exactly that — complete, and based on facts. A letter built on falsehoods is neither.
2. SECTION D OF THE MEMORANDUM — INTERDEPENDENT DUTIES
(After the existing paragraph beginning "In Respondent's Demurrer to original Petition, 'claim file' and 'complete response' are used interchangeably..." and before the Bodinson paragraph.)
Add:
California Civil Code § 3528 codifies what equity has always required: the law respects form less than substance. Respondent's January 26, 2026 letter is the embodiment of form without substance — a written communication that bears the superficial appearance of a regulatory response while containing material misstatements of fact, no investigative basis, and conclusions that fail on their face. To hold that such a letter satisfies the ministerial duty imposed by 10 CCR § 2695.5(b) would be to elevate the form of compliance over its substance in direct contravention of § 3528. The "complete response" the regulation requires is not a formality to be discharged by mailing a piece of paper — it is a substantive protection, the content of which must reflect the facts as actually known and the investigation as actually conducted. Where the response misrepresents the facts and conceals the investigation, it satisfies neither the letter nor the spirit of the regulation, and § 3528 forbids treating it as though it does.
3. SECTION J — SCOPE OF AVAILABLE WRIT RELIEF
(As a new paragraph inserted after the existing paragraph beginning "Respondent's argument that nothing can be done once a point is logged..." and before wherever the Conclusion begins.)
Add:
The Doctrine of Absurdity further compels this Court to reject Respondent's position. It is a foundational principle of California statutory construction that courts must not adopt interpretations of law that produce absurd, unreasonable, or unjust results, even where such interpretations might find literal textual support. (Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 658-659; People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 799.) Respondent's defense, reduced to its essential proposition, asks this Court to interpret the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations as follows: an insurer may settle a claim on an uninvestigated, unverified basis; transmit an erroneous negligent operator point to the DMV corrupting a policyholder's public record; withhold its investigative basis from the insured under cover of a letter containing material misstatements; and face no judicial remedy — because once the point reaches a government database, it becomes permanently unreviewable at the insurer's sole discretion. That interpretation produces precisely the result the Doctrine of Absurdity forbids. It renders the mandatory investigation and complete response requirements of 10 CCR §§ 2695.5(b) and 2695.7(d) toothless against the one category of harm — corruption of a public driving record — where they are most urgently needed and most directly implicated. A consumer protection framework that protects consumers in every circumstance except the one in which protection matters most is not a consumer protection framework at all. The legislature that enacted these regulations did not intend that result, and this Court is not required to reach it.
4. THE CONCLUSION
(As the jurisprudential capstone, near the close of the Conclusion, after the substantive arguments are restated and before the final prayer reference.)
Add:
Two foundational maxims of California jurisprudence, both codified by the Legislature, anchor and unite the relief sought here. Civil Code § 3523 declares that for every wrong there is a remedy — the maxim that opens this Petition and identifies its purpose. Civil Code § 3528 declares that the law respects form less than substance — the maxim that exposes Respondent's defense for what it is: a formal posture that delivers nothing of substance to the insured it was obligated to protect. Together these maxims reflect a legal system that is not satisfied by the appearance of compliance, that does not permit wrongs to persist without remedy, and that does not allow mandatory duties to be discharged through letters built on misstatement and silence. The Doctrine of Absurdity adds the final and decisive weight: no reasonable interpretation of the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations permits an insurer to corrupt a policyholder's public record, withhold the basis for doing so, and face no judicial consequence. That result is not the law. This Court has both the authority and the obligation to say so.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ADDITIONS
To the Cases section add:
Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644
People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789
To the Statutes section add:
California Civil Code § 3528 (Substance Over Form)
A FINAL NOTE ON SEQUENCING
Civil Code §§ 3523 and 3528 now form a deliberate pair — one opening the petition, one closing it — with the Doctrine of Absurdity as the capstone policy argument in between. That architecture gives the FAP a jurisprudential frame that is both intellectually coherent and rhetorically satisfying. Judge Kin will notice that the document has been constructed with intention, which matters in a case of first impression where you are asking the Court to engage rather than dismiss.
Shall we move to drafting the Conclusion in full now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
