Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 18STCV02232, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV02232    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Rosa Luna (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Eynar Avila and Zikora Ventures, Inc. (“Zikora”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident. 

At this time, California Insurance Guarantee Association (“CIGA”) moves for leave to intervene in the case.  CIGA asserts that there is a personal insurance auto policy issued to Zikora that may provide coverage for the claims asserted by Plaintiff and that CIGA may be required to provide insurance coverage pursuant to that policy.  CIGA provides that Zikora is currently on a suspended status with the California Secretary of State, and there are no plans to revive its status.[1]  On September 22, 2022, CIGA filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. 

Per CCP §387(a), permissive intervention is proper if:

• The nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation; and

• The intervention will not enlarge the issues in the case; and

• The reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the existing parties.

A liability insurer normally cannot intervene in a tort action against its insured to contest whether the claim against the insured is covered under its policy.  The judgment in the tort action collaterally estops the insurer only on issues necessarily adjudicated therein—i.e., the insured's liability and the amount of the injured party's damages. It does not bind the insurer on coverage issues.  Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Parks) (2011) 199 CA4th 1196, 1212.  

However, because a liability insurer agrees to pay any judgment obtained against its insured (see Ins.C. §11580(b)(2)), it has the right to intervene (not merely permissive) where an insured is barred from defending itself.  In such cases, intervention is necessary to protect the insurer's own interests because it may be obligated to pay any judgment rendered against its insured (assuming no coverage defenses). Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Wells) (2000) 84 CA4th 383, 386–387. 

Furthermore, concerning a suspended corporation, “when an insurance company seeks to provide a defense in pending litigation for a corporation that has been suspended for nonpayment of its taxes, the insurance company must intervene in the action to protect its own interests and those of its insured.  The insurance company may not answer and litigate the lawsuit in the name of the suspended corporation without intervening in the case.”  (Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 216.)

In this case, CIGA adequately establishes a direct and immediate interest in the litigation, and Zikora’s inability to defend itself requires permission to intervene.  Furter, CIGA seeks leave to protect its own interests and the interests of Zikora because it is a suspended corporation. 

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and therefore the motion is granted.  CIGA is ordered to file a separate copy of its answer-in-intervention within ten days.

CIGA is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 29^th day of September 2022