Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV26429, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26429    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Orlando Johnson and Myesha Coleman filed this action against defendants Andre Dean (“Dean”) and Leslie Spencer (“Spencer”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident. 

At this time, Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya”) moves for leave to intervene in the case, contending its insured, Dean, cannot be located, is uncooperative, and is not actively participating in the litigation.  Loya has also attempted to contact Spencer but has been unsuccessful.

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 missing or 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.) 

In this case, the Court finds that Loya filed a motion to intervene upon confirming that it cannot locate its insured.  Loya adequately establishes a direct and immediate interest in the litigation.  It states that it will not enlarge the issues in the action, instead asserting defenses that the Defendants would assert, and the inability to locate its insured requires permission to intervene.

Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and therefore the motion is granted.  Loya is ordered to file an answer-in-intervention within twenty (20) days.  

Intervenor Loya 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 22^nd day of September 2022