parties agree to a binding arbitration with a low of $14,000 anda high of contractual damages up to and including the applicablepolicy limit.”State Farm prepared a further written agreement, ascontemplated by the agreement executed at the mediation, butPalmer refused to sign it. State Farm sought to enforce thefurther written agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure664.6.
The trial court ruled on the “review of the declarationsand evidence submitted” that the “parties agreed to a high/lowarbitration proceeding, with a low of $14,000 and a high ‘up toand including the applicable policy limit’, not twice the policylimit as plaintiff now claims.”Palmer argues on appeal that the parties agreed that shewas entitled to recover up to the applicable policy limits ofher insurance policy on
of her two potential claims andasserts that “there was no substantial evidence to support thetrial court’s enforcement of the [further written] settlementagreement” and that such enforcement amounted to animpermissible reformation of the settlement agreement executedat the mediation.The trial court resolved whatever ambiguity existed in thesettlement agreement by review of the declarations of theparties. We find that substantial evidence supports thejudgment. (
Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.
(1965) 62 Cal.2d861, 865.) Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
Further undesignated statutory references are to the Code ofCivil Procedure.2