Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV03475, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03475    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    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 February 16, 2023, Plaintiff Kejenae Brooks (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Noel Arreola Zamora, Alma Arely Robles, and Does 1 to 20 for negligence related to a motor vehicle accident.  

On October 23, 2024, non-party Integon Preferred Insurance Company (“Integon”) filed the instant motion for leave to intervene as the insurer for Defendant Alma Arely Robles (“Robles”). No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

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).) “[I]ntervention by an insurer is permitted where the insurer remains liable for any default judgment against the insured, and it has no means other than intervention to litigate liability or damage issues.” (Id. at 385.)

DISCUSSION

Here, Integon argues it provided liability coverage to Robles for the vehicle involved in this action. (Skalsky Decl. ¶ 4, 6.) Integon further states that it is unable to contact Robles to defend this case, despite hiring a private investigator who visited her last known address and called and texted all of her known phone numbers. (Id. ¶ 9.) Therefore, Integon appears to have a direct interest in this case. It also does not appear the issues in this case would be enlarged by intervention. Therefore, because Robles has also been unresponsive towards defending this case, the motion for leave to intervene is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Accordingly, the Court grants Integon Preferred Insurance Company’s motion for leave to intervene. Integon Preferred Insurance Company shall file and serve its answer-in-intervention within 10 days.[1]

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