Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

*960Opinion

In this case we consider the circumstances under which a court may deny a petition to compel arbitration because of the petitioner’s fraud in inducing the arbitration agreement or waiver of the arbitration agreement. Plaintiffs are family members and representatives of the estate of Wilfredo Engalla (hereafter sometimes the Engallas). Engalla was enrolled, through his place of employment, in a health plan operated by the Permanente Medical Group, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (hereafter Kaiser).

Prior to his death, Engalla was engaged in a medical malpractice dispute with Kaiser, which, according to the terms of Kaiser’s “Group Medical and Hospital Services Agreement” (Service Agreement), was submitted to arbitration. After attempting unsuccessfully to conclude the arbitration prior to Engalla’s death, the Engallas filed a malpractice action against Kaiser in superior court, and Kaiser filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2.1 In opposing the petition, plaintiffs claimed that Kaiser’s self-administered arbitration system was corrupt or biased in a number of respects, that Kaiser fraudulently misrepresented the expeditiousness of its arbitration system, and that Kaiser engaged in a course of dilatory conduct in order to postpone Engalla’s arbitration hearing until after his death, all of which should be grounds for refusing to enforce the arbitration agreement. The trial court found in the Engallas’ favor, denying Kaiser’s petition to compel arbitration on grounds of fraud, but the Court of Appeal reversed.

We conclude that there is indeed evidence to support the trial court’s initial findings that Kaiser engaged in fraudulent conduct justifying a denial of its petition to compel arbitration, but we further conclude that questions of fact remain to be resolved by the trial court before it can be determined whether Kaiser’s conduct was actually fraudulent. Similarly, there is a factual question as to whether Kaiser’s actions constituted a waiver of its right to compel arbitration. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and direct it to remand the case to the trial court for such factual determinations. As will appear, although we affirm the basic policy in favor of enforcement of arbitration agreements, the governing statutes place limits on the extent to which a party that has committed misfeasance in the performance of such an agreement may compel its enforcement.

*961I. Factual and Procedural Background

Because the nature of this case cannot be appreciated without a detailed understanding of its factual context, these facts are set forth at length below.2

Engalla immigrated to the United States in 1980, where he commenced employment with Oliver Tire & Rubber Company (hereafter Oliver Tire) as a certified public accountant. At that time, Engalla was invited to enroll himself and his immediate family in a health plan offered by Kaiser. Oliver Tire had offered its employees health care through Kaiser since 1976, and its plan was renewed annually thereafter. Engalla enrolled with Kaiser by signing an application form which stated, in relevant part: “I apply for health plan membership for the persons listed and agree that we shall abide by the provisions of the Service Agreement and health plan regulations. If the agreement so provides, any monetary claim asserted by a Member or the Member’s heirs or personnel [s/c] representative on account of bodily injury, mental disturbance or death must be submitted to binding arbitration instead of a court trial.”

A. The Underlying Medical Malpractice Claim.

In March 1986, Engalla presented himself to Kaiser’s Hayward facility complaining of a continuing cough and shortness of breath. Tests were administered, including radiologic examinations, and Kaiser’s radiologist noted abnormalities of his right lung. Previous radiologic studies performed by Kaiser in 1982 at the same Hayward facility had been inadvertently destroyed, but would otherwise have confirmed that the abnormal condition had only recently developed. In his notes from the 1986 examination, the radiologist recommended follow-up if the films could not be located, but none was ever performed. For several years thereafter, Engalla repeatedly presented Kaiser with complaints symptomatic of respiratory disease. On some occasions he was given an appointment with a physician, but on other occasions he was only permitted to see nurse practitioners. For years, he was given inhalation medication, but Kaiser failed to perform diagnostic tests that might have revealed the developing cancer. Instead, he was repeatedly diagnosed with common colds and allergies. X-rays taken in 1991 finally revealed adenocarcinoma of the lung, a type of lung cancer, but by then Engalla’s condition was inoperable.

B. The Arbitration Clause.

On or about May 31, 1991, Engalla and members of his immediate family served on Kaiser a written demand for arbitration of their claims that Kaiser *962health care professionals had been negligent in failing to diagnose Engalla’s lung cancer sooner. The Engallas’ attorney, David Rand, correctly believed his clients were required to do so pursuant to the Service Agreement which was in effect at the time. The arbitration clause contained in the Service Agreement described the process for initiating a claim, the requirement that three arbitrators be used, and the time frame within which the arbitrators were to be selected. In this regard, section 8.B. of the Service Agreement provides that each side “shall” designate a party arbitrator within 30 days of service of the claim and that the 2 party arbitrators “shall” designate a third, neutral arbitrator within 30 days thereafter.3 Section 8.C. sets forth general provisions concerning the arbitration of claims and incorporates applicable California law, including the California statute of limitations, the California Code of Civil Procedure provisions relating to arbitration, and the California Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 (MICRA).

The Service Agreement further provides a broad statement governing its interpretation and, in that regard, states that Kaiser “is a named fiduciary to review claims under the Service Agreement.” The nature of the claims for which Kaiser promises to act as a fiduciary is not specified, but a review of the Service Agreement reveals that the term “claims” appears in section 8, entitled “Arbitration of Claims.”

The arbitration program is designed, written, mandated and administered by Kaiser. In regard to the latter, Kaiser collects funds from claimants and holds and disburses them as necessary to pay the neutral arbitrator and expenses approved by him or her. It monitors administrative matters pertinent to the progress of each case including, for example, the identity and dates of appointment of arbitrators. It does not, however, employ or contract with any independent person or entity to provide such administrative services, or any oversight or evaluation of the arbitration program or its performance. Rather, administrative functions are performed by outside counsel retained to defend Kaiser in an adversarial capacity.

The fact that Kaiser has designed and administers its arbitration program from an adversarial perspective is not disclosed to Kaiser members or *963subscribers. It is not set forth in the arbitration provision itself, or in any of Kaiser’s publications or disclosures about the arbitration program, and it was unknown to Engalla’s employer, who signed the Service Agreement on his behalf. The employer’s representative, Theodomeir Roy, read the provisions of the Service Agreement, and believed that the arbitration process would be equally fair to both the employee-subscriber and to Kaiser, and that it would allow employees to resolve disputes quickly and without undue expense. His expectation in that regard was consistent with the intent of Kaiser’s general counsel, Scott Fleming, who originally drafted the arbitration provision, as well as various publications disseminated to Kaiser members. In those materials, Kaiser represented that an arbitration in its program would reach a hearing within several months’ time, and that its members would find the arbitration process to be a fair approach to protecting their rights.

C. Processing of the Engallas’ Claim.

Kaiser received the Engallas’ May 31, 1991, demand for arbitration on June 5 or 6, approximately three business days after it was mailed by the Engallas’ counsel. In that demand letter, Rand explained the nature of the claim, advised Kaiser of Engalla’s terminal condition, and appealed to Kaiser to expedite the adjudication of the claim. Although he did not yet have a copy of the arbitration provision, Rand expressed an unqualified willingness to submit the matter to arbitration. At the same time, Rand indicated that he needed and was requesting a copy of the arbitration provision.

After hearing nothing for two weeks, Rand again wrote to Kaiser, repeated his agreement to arbitrate, and stressed the fact that “Mr. Engalla has very little time left in his life and I again urge you to assist me in expediting this matter for that reason.” Several days later, Kaiser’s in-house counsel, Cynthia Shiffrin, whose responsibility it was to monitor the Engallas’ file, responded to the claim by acknowledging receipt and providing a copy of the arbitration provision per Rand’s request. In turn, she requested $150, as required by the arbitration provision, as a deposit for half the expenses of the arbitration. Rand mailed the check the same day he received Shiffrin’s letter. Shiffrin also expressed her willingness to comply with the request to avoid delay, noting that she had arranged for “expedited copies” of Engalla’s medical records, and promising that outside counsel would contact Rand “in the near future with Kaiser’s designation of an arbitrator.”

D. Appointment of the Party Arbitrators.

In his May 31, 1991, demand letter, Rand requested that Kaiser’s counsel contact him at the earliest convenience “so we may choose arbitrators.” He *964repeated that request on June 14, 1991. On June 21, Kaiser’s outside counsel, Willis F. McComas, indicated that Kaiser would provide the identity of its arbitrator only after receiving the Engallas’ designation. Rand objected to this staggered disclosure as not authorized by the arbitration agreement. Having heard nothing from McComas by July 8, Rand went ahead and designated Attorney Peter Molligan as the Engallas’ arbitrator, again repeating his request that Kaiser do likewise “so that the two arbitrators can immediately commence efforts to identify and appoint the neutral arbitrator.” It was not until July 17, 47 days after service of the claim, that McComas designated Kaiser’s party arbitrator, Attorney Michael Ney. McComas admitted that he had not calendered any of the deadlines for designation of the arbitrators, claiming “[tjhere is no rule that requires that.”

Although he had designated Ney as his party arbitrator, McComas had not actually contacted Ney beforehand to see if he was available. Instead, on the day he designated him, McComas wrote to Ney asking if he was available. In that letter, McComas advised Ney that the plaintiff was terminally ill, and that Rand had asked for an early arbitration date, but said that he had not responded to the request.

Although McComas was aware from the outset that Engalla was terminally ill and probably had only a few months to live, and claimed that he had “cooperated in the appointment of the party arbitrator very early in the case,” it was later revealed that he had been advised by Ney in July that Ney was unable to accept any further assignments to act as a party arbitrator until late November, over four months away. When the fact of Ney’s unavailability came to light on August 15, Rand made repeated requests that Kaiser appoint another arbitrator, but McComas refused. Rand also requested that Kaiser stipulate to a single neutral arbitrator, but that request was similarly refused. However, in late July, McComas did make arrangements for a backup arbitrator, Tom Watrous, who would step in if Ney was not available when the parties were ready to proceed with the arbitration hearing.4

E. Negotiations for Appointment of Neutral Arbitrator and Hearing Date.

According to the Service Agreement, a neutral arbitrator is to be chosen by the two party arbitrators within thirty days of their selection, and the hearing is to be held “within a reasonable time thereafter.” Thus, pursuant to *965the time frame mandated by Kaiser, the neutral arbitrator must be selected within 60 days after initial service of the claim. There is no dispute that timely appointment of a neutral arbitrator is critical to the progress of the case, inter alia, because the Code of Civil Procedure provides a right to discovery only “[a]fter the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators.” (§ 1283.05, subd. (a).) In fact, in this case, McComas asserted that discovery could not commence until the neutral arbitrator was selected, because the neutral arbitrator would have to approve any discovery. Similarly, a hearing date cannot be set until the neutral arbitrator is appointed. (§ 1282.2, subd. (a).) In this case, McComas refused to discuss disclosure of expert witnesses until the hearing date was set. In short, the timely appointment of a neutral arbitrator is the linchpin of all progress in a Kaiser arbitration. Without a neutral arbitrator in place, and absent a stipulation, nothing can be accomplished.

Although the arbitration provision specifies that the two party arbitrators “shall” select a neutral arbitrator, in reality the selection is made by defense counsel after consultation with the Kaiser medical-legal department. Kaiser has never relinquished control over this selection decision. Indeed, in this case, McComas instructed Ney on who should be proposed and who was unacceptable. Thus, the timeliness of appointment of a neutral arbitrator depends upon cooperation and agreement by Kaiser and its counsel, as well as that of the claimants and their attorneys.

In the initial claim of May 31, 1991, Rand requested the immediate commencement of the process for selection of arbitrators. During the next few months, Rand wrote more than a dozen letters to the arbitrators and McComas asking that the selections be made. Only two weeks after serving his demand letter, Rand stated that he intended “to encourage both designated arbitrators to identify the third arbitrator at the earliest possible date.” On July 8, Rand suggested an agreement on the date for designation of experts, preferably in August, “and that we anticipate having the arbitration soon thereafter.” On July 18, Rand again wrote to McComas on the subject of scheduling the arbitration hearing, noting that he would be prepared to proceed by early September. On July 23, Rand wrote to both party arbitrators and McComas, again stressing the terminal condition of the plaintiff, his desire to hold the arbitration hearing in early September, and the urgent need to select the third, neutral arbitrator. Rand again wrote to the two party arbitrators on August 9, and again urged them to “select the third arbitrator as soon as possible.” The Engallas’ designated arbitrator, Peter Molligan, also attempted to push the defense into motion. On August 12, after trying at least three times to get Ney on the phone, Molligan finally wrote Ney about selecting the neutral arbitrator in order to “get this case moving.” A few days *966later, having still heard nothing, Rand tried again, saying: “Time is of the absolute essence and I again ask that you use all possible means to quickly select the third arbitrator. I am becoming increasingly concerned about the delays and am beginning to wonder whether the arbitration proceedings are suitable for this case.”

During the week following August 15, 1991, the two party arbitrators exchanged six names. Rand also continued to press the issue of the unavailability of party arbitrator Ney, which he had just learned about, and repeated his request that the parties move toward a schedule that would allow the arbitration proceedings to begin in September. On August 30, having still heard nothing about the third arbitrator, Rand wrote to Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) Judge Daniel Weinstein requesting proposals for judges who could be available for a hearing date “within the next several weeks.”

On September 3, Ney wrote to Molligan, rejecting as unacceptable Judge Francis Mayer, one of the “neutrals” Molligan had suggested. Apparently, this veto was exercised pursuant to McComas’s instructions. Ney expressed doubts about the availability of Molligan’s other two choices—retired Judge Fannin or Weinstein, although he had not checked with either judge—and pressed instead for one of his own choices. On September 5, while Molligan was out of town, Rand agreed to one of the suggestions, Judge Robert Cooney, on the condition that “he can be available to commence this matter this month.” If he was not available, Rand suggested two JAMS judges he knew to be available in September. Rand wrote to McComas again on September 18 and 25, literally begging for responses to his many suggestions for expediting the arbitration process.

Despite this additional prompting, McComas did not respond for almost three weeks and, when he finally wrote to Rand on September 24, he expressed uncertainty as to whether Judge Cooney had been agreed upon. Rand immediately responded on September 26 that Judge Cooney had been accepted and that he was only waiting for confirmation that the judge would be available “in the very near future.” Apparently, because Kaiser holds itself out as the program administrator, collects and disburses arbitrator fees and had, in fact, proposed Judge Cooney, Rand assumed Kaiser would handle the formal retention of Judge Cooney and pay a deposit on his fees. Kaiser takes the position that it is the claimant’s burden to move the case along, including making arrangements with the neutral arbitrator.

After almost two more weeks, McComas wrote again on October 7, this time claiming that “[t]o this date, neither you nor your clients have agreed to *967the appointment of a neutral arbitrator” because “[y]ou apparently agreed to Judge Cooney with an unrealistic condition.”5 Rand responded on October 16, stating, “I am incredulous that you are still asking that we agree to the appointment of the neutral arbitrator. We have repeatedly informed you that we will agree to your suggestion of Judge Cooney. Why do you continue to insist that we have not agreed? My only reservation was and still is a question concerning availability.” On October 18, Rand again wrote that he was “still waiting to hear from you concéming the final retention of Judge Cooney. I had promised him that he would be hearing from you when I advised him that we had agreed to his appointment.”

Finally, on October 22, McComas wrote to say that he understood the Engallas had agreed to retain Judge Cooney as the neutral arbitrator, conditioned upon his availability, and that he had, therefore, instructed Ney to complete the retainer. By this time, 144 days—almost 3 months more than the 60 days for the selection of the arbitrators represented in the Service Agreement—had elapsed since the initial service of the claim. Engalla died the next day.

F. Historical Data re Speed of Kaiser Arbitrations.

Statistically, delays occur in 99 percent of all Kaiser medical malpractice arbitrations. An independent statistical analysis of Kaiser-provided data of arbitration between 1984 and 1986 reveals that in only 1 percent of all Kaiser cases is a neutral arbitrator appointed within the 60-day period provided by the arbitration provision. Only 3 percent of cases see a neutral arbitrator appointed within 180 days. On average, it has taken 674 days for the appointment of a neutral arbitrator. For claimants whose cases were resolved by settlement or after a hearing, the time required to appoint a neutral arbitrator consumed more than half the total time for resolution. Furthermore, because the arbitration provision of the Service Agreement does not clearly establish a time frame for a hearing (it must be within a “reasonable time” after appointment of the neutral arbitrator), and because Kaiser claims it has no obligation to participate in a hearing until it deems itself ready, there tend to be significant additional delays after appointment of the neutral arbitrator. Thus, on average, it takes 863 days—almost V-h years—to reach a hearing in a Kaiser arbitration. The depositions of Scott *968Fleming and Arthur Bernstein, both of whom formerly served as Kaiser’s in-house counsel, revealed that Kaiser had long been aware that widespread delays were commonplace in Kaiser arbitrations.

G. Deposition Scheduling During the Aborted Arbitration Proceedings.

In proceedings parallel to his efforts to complete appointments of the arbitrators, Rand began attempts to conduct discovery immediately after filing his demand for arbitration. On June 14, 1991, he wrote to Kaiser stating his desire to complete Engalla’s deposition “on the earliest date permitted by law,” and his willingness to schedule it for a mutually convenient time. McComas promptly responded to that request by noticing the depositions of all the Engallas for November 18, 1991—a date more than five months down the road—despite Rand’s admonition that Engalla “had very little time left in his life.” On June 26, Rand notified McComas that his proposed dates were unacceptable, and suggested that Engalla’s deposition be taken “much earlier than you have noticed [because his] developing condition may not permit a full deposition on November 18.” Rand again indicated his willingness to find mutually agreeable dates. He also requested the depositions of involved doctors “in the near future.”

When McComas did not respond for almost two weeks, Rand noticed Engalla’s deposition for August 9. In a letter accompanying that notice, Rand repeated his request for deposition of the doctors “this month” (July), proposed an agreement to designate experts in August, and offered to set dates for the other Engalla claimants at McComas’s “earliest convenience.” After the location was changed for medical reasons, Rand proceeded with Engalla’s deposition on August 9, over Kaiser’s objection that it had not been given any prior opportunity to conduct a discovery deposition. The August 9 deposition of Engalla, noticed and taken by Rand, was to be the only deposition that would be accomplished in the arbitration phase of this case.

Rand’s efforts to schedule depositions of the involved doctors and nurses continued to founder. He initially requested dates for the depositions of the treating physicians on June 26, and did so again on July 8. In his June 26 request, and in each subsequent request, Rand offered to schedule the depositions at times—even after hours or on weekends—that would be convenient for Kaiser. He finally set them by notice of July 18. On July 24, McComas’s secretary called Rand to request that they be taken off calendar. Rand responded that he would cooperate, but only if alternative dates could be established. No alternative dates were ever proposed by Kaiser, and the witnesses did not attend their scheduled depositions. McComas failed to *969respond to three subsequent requests for depositions, which were made on September 5, 18, and 25. On September 24, McComas simply promised that his secretary would call to give dates for the health care providers. That did not occur until October 2, when McComas’s secretary offered November 21 and 22 for the depositions of the doctors. This was the first time Kaiser had offered to produce the involved physicians, and the dates were still almost a month after Engalla’s death. Although Rand ultimately convinced McComas to provide earlier dates for some (but not all) of the involved health care providers, the depositions were not taken because Engalla died before they could be completed.

As McComas subsequently admitted in a sworn declaration, the reason for the delays in scheduling depositions was that he “did not obtain all of the significant advice from [his] principal outside medical experts until early October, 1991 [and it] was for [that] reason that [he] never suggested deposition dates . . . before the fourth week of October.”

H. Termination of the Prior Arbitration.

Immediately upon learning of Engalla’s death on October 23, Rand notified McComas of that fact and asked him to stipulate that Kaiser would not capitalize on the delays that had plagued the arbitration. Specifically, Rand explained that under the case of Atkins v. Strayhorn (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1380 [273 Cal.Rptr. 231], the limitation of $250,000 on noneconomic damages under Civil Code section 3333.2 for a medical malpractice suit is applied separately to the claims of a patient and his spouse who simultaneously claims loss of consortium. Because Mrs. Engalla had made such a claim, Atkins authorized a total claim for noneconomic damages of $500,000. However, upon the passing of Engalla, the case of Yates v. Pollock (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 195 [239 Cal.Rptr. 383], required merger of the widow’s loss of consortium claim into an indivisible claim for wrongful death, which warrants only a single general damage claim limited to $250,000. Rand’s request for a stipulation to override the effect of Yates was refused. At that point, Rand notified McComas that the Engallas refused to continue with the arbitration.

I. Commencement of Court Proceedings.

On February 21, 1992, the Engallas filed their complaint in Alameda Superior Court. They alleged, in addition to the underlying malpractice claim, fraud as a defense to enforcement of the arbitration provision of the Service Agreement (hereafter arbitration agreement) and as the basis of an affirmative claim for damages, as well as various other claims related to the *970breach of the arbitration agreement. On March 20, Kaiser removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming that the action and all issues presented were subject to the rule of federal preemption contained in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1144). About the same time, Kaiser proposed to continue the arbitration process. The Engallas declined the offer and, instead, filed a motion to remand. On June 19, the federal court granted the Engallas’ motion in its entirety and remanded the matter back to state court.

Upon remand, the Engallas immediately filed a motion to compel discovery they had served prior to Kaiser’s removal effort. Kaiser responded with a petition to compel arbitration and stay the court action. The parties thereafter briefed both the discovery and arbitration motions, and the trial court heard lengthy argument and took the matters under submission. On September 29, 1992, the court issued an order continuing the matter for 90 days to permit the Engallas to make their “best showing with respect to the evidentiary grounds that exist to warrant removal of this case from the arbitration process.” Discovery rulings were made only with respect to discovery that specifically pertained to the arbitration (as opposed to the medical malpractice) issues.

The parties embarked upon a course of discovery which was limited in light of the summary nature of the petition Kaiser had filed. The Engallas ultimately had five months to complete discovery, during which time thirteen motions were filed and more than a dozen depositions were taken.

The parties then submitted further briefs in connection with Kaiser’s petition to compel arbitration. The Engallas also moved for summary adjudication of issues, asking for a judicial determination, pursuant to section 437c, subdivision (f), that Kaiser owed them certain duties. This motion was subsequently dismissed without prejudice based on certain technical defects. The Engallas also filed a discovery motion to obtain assertedly privileged documents.

After a hearing the trial court issued its order denying Kaiser’s petition after making specific findings of fact on the issue of fraud both “in the inducement” and “in the application” of the arbitration agreement. The court further found that the arbitration agreement, as applied, was overbroad, unconscionable and a violation of public policy, inasmuch as Kaiser was arguing that the agreement could not be avoided on grounds of fraudulent inducement. The court further found that equitable considerations peculiar to this case required the invalidation of the arbitration provision.

*971On June 4, 1993, a hearing was held on the Engallas’ discovery motion. At that hearing, Kaiser’s counsel advised the court that Kaiser would not appeal the decision denying the petition, conceding that the court’s ruling on the petition “was quite correct.” However, Kaiser later reconsidered and appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed. It rejected the claim that Kaiser had defrauded the Engallas, finding inter alia that Kaiser’s contractual representation of a 60-day time limit for the selection of arbitrators was not “a representation of fact or a promise by Kaiser because appointment of the neutral arbitrator requires the cooperation of and mutual agreement of the parties.” (Original italics.) The court further concluded there was no evidence of actual reliance on these representations nor evidence that the Engallas would have been any better off had their claims been submitted for judicial resolution rather than arbitration. The court also found that the availability of section 1281.6, which permits one of the parties to petition the court to appoint an arbitrator when the parties fail to agree on one, undermined the Engallas’ claim that Kaiser’s alleged deliberate delay in selecting arbitrators was a ground for avoiding the arbitration agreement. The court further rejected the claim that Kaiser’s special relationship as Engalla’s insurer or as a fiduciary in the administration of his health plan created any special duty to disclose the workings of its arbitration program. Finally, the court held the Engallas’ waiver and unconscionability claims to be without merit. We granted review.6

II. Procedural Issues

Before proceeding to the merits, we must address certain procedural and threshold matters. As both parties concede, California law is expressly incorporated into the arbitration agreement in question, and governs the adjudication of any disputes arising from that agreement. (Volt Info. Sciences v. Leland Stanford Jr. U. (1989) 489 U.S. 468, 476 [109 S.Ct. 1248, 1254, 103 L.Ed.2d 488].) California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability (Ericksen, Arbuthnot, McCarthy, Kearney & Walsh, Inc. v. 100 Oak Street (1983) 35 Cal.3d 312, 323 [197 *972Cal.Rptr. 581, 673 P.2d 251]) and a requirement that an arbitration agreement must be enforced on the basis of state law standards that apply to contracts in general (Madden v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 709, fn. 11 [131 Cal.Rptr. 882, 552 P.2d 1178] (Madden)). These policies guide our determination of the present matter.

The nature of the proceeding to resolve a petition to compel arbitration under California law was recently explained by this court in Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 875, 926 P.2d 1061] (Rosenthal). As we explain in that case, sections 1281.2 and 1290.2 create a summary proceeding for resolving these petitions. (14 Cal.4th at p. 413.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by the preponderance of the evidence, and a party opposing the petition bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to its defense. (Ibid.) In these summary proceedings, the trial court sits as a trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination. (Id. at pp. 413-414.) No jury trial is available for a petition to compel arbitration. (Id. at p. 413.)

Although the record is not entirely clear on this point, it appears that the trial court in this case, as in Rosenthal (see Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 414), incorrectly treated Kaiser’s petition to compel arbitration as a type of summary judgment motion, in which it was obliged to determine only that there was a legitimate factual dispute among the parties and not to resolve that dispute. The court stated at the conclusion of its ruling on the petition to compel; “In summary, the Plaintiffs have made a substantive challenge to the arbitration clause and have presented facts tending to show that they were victims of fraud in the inducement and application of the arbitration clause. How a trier of fact will ultimately decide the issues is not for this court to decide. However, given the seriousness of the allegations, the showing of a factual basis for those claims, and the finality of arbitration even in the face of apparent legal error [citation], the strong policy favoring arbitration is outweighed by the law and facts in support of Plaintiffs’ position.” (Italics added.) To judge from remarks made by the trial court during the hearing on the petition to compel, the court appears to have followed the reasoning of Rowland v. Paine Webber Inc. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 279, 285-286 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 20], that a court must only determine whether “there are any facts supporting the allegations of fraudulent inducement.” Toward the end of the hearing on the petition to compel, the trial court again alluded to cases “that have . . . talked in terms of the burden being akin to a burden on a summary judgment motion.” Moreover, *973both counsel for the Engallas and for Kaiser appear to have conceived their burden as one similar to summary judgment. The trial court was apparently of the view that it did not have to definitively decide the fraud issue in order to dispose of the petition, because that issue would be ultimately decided by a jury in the context of the Engallas’ damages action. Because the trial court, understandably confused by case law (see Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 407 and cases cited therein), apparently abdicated its role as trier of fact in deciding the petition to compel arbitration, the case must be remanded to that court to resolve any factually disputed issues, unless there is no evidentiary support for the Engallas’ claims. (See id. at p. 414.) We turn then to the question whether there was such support.7

III. Fraud in the Inducement of the Arbitration Agreement

The Engallas claim fraud in the inducement of the arbitration agreement and therefore that “[gjrounds exist for the revocation of the agreement” within the meaning of section 1281.2, subdivision (b). As has been pointed out, the “revocation of a contract” referred to in section 1281.2 is something of a misnomer. “Offers are ‘revoked.’ [Citation.] Contracts are extinguished by rescission.” (Knight et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Alternative Dispute Resolution (The Rutter Group 1996) ^ 5.111, p. 5-31, italics omitted.) We construe section 1281.2, subdivision (b), to mean that the petition to compel arbitration is not to be granted when there are grounds for rescinding the agreement. Fraud is one of the grounds on which a contract can be rescinded. (Civ. Code, § 1689, subd. (b)(1).) In order to defeat a petition to compel arbitration, the parties opposing a petition to compel must show that the asserted fraud claim goes specifically “ ‘to the “making” of the agreement to arbitrate,’ ” rather than to the making of the contract in general. (Rosenthal, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 415.) In the present case, the Engallas do allege, and seek to show, fraud in the making of the arbitration agreement.

The Engallas claim8 that Engalla was fraudulently induced to enter the arbitration agreement—in essence a claim of promissory fraud. “ ‘Promissory fraud’ is a subspecies of fraud and deceit. A promise to do something necessarily implies the intention to perform; hence, where a promise is made without such intention, there is an implied misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud. [Citations.] [C|T] An action for promissory fraud may lie *974where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 909 P.2d 981].) The elements of fraud that will give rise to a tort action for deceit are: “ ‘(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’ ” {Ibid.) As explained below, there is no requirement to show pecuniary damages when fraud is the basis for a defense to a petition to compel arbitration, rather than a suit for damages.

Here the Engallas claim (1) that Kaiser misrepresented its arbitration agreement in that it entered into the agreement knowing that, at the very least, there was a likelihood its agents would breach the part of the agreement providing for the timely appointment of arbitrators and the expeditious progress towards an arbitration hearing; (2) that Kaiser employed the above misrepresentation in order to induce reliance on the part of Engalla and his employer; (3) that Engalla relied on these misrepresentations to his detriment. The trial court found evidence supporting those claims. We examine each of these claims in turn.

First, evidence of misrepresentation is plain. “[F]alse representations made recklessly and without regard for their truth in order to induce action by another are the equivalent of misrepresentations knowingly and intentionally uttered.” (Yellow Creek Logging Corp. v. Dare (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 50, 55 [30 Cal.Rptr. 629].) As recounted above, section 8.B. of the arbitration agreement provides that party arbitrators “shall” be chosen within 30 days and neutral arbitrators within 60 days, and that the arbitration hearing “shall” be held “within a reasonable time thereafter.” Although Kaiser correctly argues that these contractual representations did not bind it to appoint a neutral arbitrator within 60 days, since the appointment of that arbitrator is a bilateral decision that depends on agreements of the parties, Kaiser’s contractual representations were at the very least commitments to exercise good faith and reasonable diligence to have the arbitrators appointed within the specified time. This good faith duty is underscored by Kaiser’s contractual assumption of the duty to administer the health service plan as a fiduciary.

Here there are facts to support the Engallas’ allegation that Kaiser entered into the arbitration agreement with knowledge that it would not comply with its own contractual timelines, or with at least a reckless indifference as to whether its agents would use reasonable diligence and good faith to comply with them. As discussed, a survey of Kaiser arbitrations between 1984 and *9751986 submitted into evidence showed that a neutral arbitrator was appointed within 60 days in only 1 percent of the cases, with only 3 percent appointed within 180 days, and that on average the neutral arbitrator was appointed 674 days—almost 2 years—after the demand for arbitration. Regardless of when Kaiser became aware of these precise statistics, which were part of a 1989 study, the depositions of two of Kaiser’s in-house attorneys demonstrate that Kaiser was aware soon after it began its arbitration program that its contractual deadlines were not being met, and that severe delay was endemic to the program. Kaiser nonetheless persisted in its contractual promises of expeditiousness.

Kaiser now argues that most of these delays were caused by the claimants themselves and their attorneys, who procrastinated in the selection of a neutral arbitrator. But Kaiser’s counterexplanation is without any statistical support, and is based solely on anecdotal evidence related by Kaiser officials. Moreover, the explanation appears implausible in view of the sheer pervasiveness of the delays. While it is theoretically possible that 99 percent of plaintiffs’ attorneys did not seek a rapid