Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV01333, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01333    Hearing Date: October 27, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Mohammad Z. Mahbub and Afifa Mahbub (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendants Francisco Javier Holguin, Ford Motor Company, Jackson Dawson/RMD Group, Inc., and Does 1 to 100 for injuries relating to a car accident. Plaintiffs claimed that Francisco Javier Holguin (Holguin) negligently operated the vehicle and was employed by Jackson Dawson/RMD Group, Inc. (JD/RMD Group).

On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to substitute Estate of Holgin for deceased Defendant Francisco Javier Holguin. The motion asserts that Plaintiff is not aware of the identity of a personal representative or successor in interest, and therefore the motion is directed to continue this action as to the insurer, Continental Casualty Company (Continental) pursuant to Probate Code section 550.

Non-party Continental separately moves for leave to file an answer in intervention on behalf of Holguin. Continental asserts it provided automobile insurance for JD/RMD Group and its employees and that Holguin has passed away. The Court first heard the motion on October 9, 2023 and ordered any supplemental briefing to be filed at least 10 days prior to this hearing.

No opposition to either motion was filed, and no supplemental briefing was filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Probate Code section 550 provides: “(a) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, an action to establish the decedent's liability for which the decedent was protected by insurance may be commenced or continued against the decedent's estate without the need to join as a party the decedent's personal representative or successor in interest. (b) The remedy provided in this chapter is cumulative and may be pursued concurrently with other remedies.”

Probate Code section 552 provides: “(a) An action under this chapter shall name as the defendant, “Estate of (name of decedent), Deceased.” Summons shall be served on a person designated in writing by the insurer or, if none, on the insurer. Further proceedings shall be in the name of the estate, but otherwise shall be conducted in the same manner as if the action were against the personal representative. …”

Probate Code section 553 provides: “The insurer may deny or otherwise contest its liability in an action under this chapter or by an independent action. Unless the personal representative is joined as a party, a judgment in the action under this chapter or in the independent action does not adjudicate rights by or against the estate.”

Probate Code section 554 provides: “(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), either the damages sought in an action under this chapter shall be within the limits and coverage of the insurance, or recovery of damages outside the limits or coverage of the insurance shall be waived. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the action is enforceable only from the insurance coverage and not against property in the estate.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 387(d) provides, “[t]he court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: . . . (B) The person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code. Civ. Proc. § 387(d)(1)(B).) Also, “[t]he court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.” (Code. Civ. Proc. § 387(d)(2).)

“Pursuant to section 387 the trial court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene where the following factors are met: (1) the proper procedures have been followed; (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.” (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.)

An insurance company may intervene in an action against its insured when the insured is not defending the action, in order to avoid harm to the insurer. (Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205.) This right to intervene arises from Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2), which allows a judgment creditor for a personal injury action to recover the judgment against the insurer, pursuant to its policy limits. (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386; Ins. Code, § 11580(b)(2).)

DISCUSSION

First, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Holguin was driving a vehicle owned by the Ford Motor Company, which had been loaned to Jackson Dawson/ RMD Group. (Motion at p. 1.) RMD Group’s insurer is Continental. (Id.) Defendant Holguin died on May 23, 2023. (Id.) Plaintiffs state that they are aware of the limitations in Probate Code section 554(a), yet nevertheless request to proceed against Holguin’s estate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.20(a) and Probate Code section 550. The Court grants the request.

Separately, Continental argues it has an interest in this matter as the insurer for JD/RMD Group employees, including Holguin. Accordingly, Continental requests leave to intervene to protect its insured’s interest. The Court grants the request. Moreover, now that the Court has granted Plaintiff’s request pursuant to Probate Code section 550, Plaintiff would need to serve Continental.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to substitute Estate of Holguin.

            The Court further grants Continental’s motion for leave to intervene.

Each moving party shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.