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?