Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV45942, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45942    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Claudia E. Ramos Miranda, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Antonio Honorio Landeros (“Landeros”) and Karbonous, Inc. (“Karbonous”) (collectively, “Defendants”), erroneously sued and served as Prominent Systems Inc., dba Prominent Filter Service for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, American Fire And Casualty (“American Fire”) moves for leave to intervene in the case, contending its insured, Landeros, cannot be located.  No opposition has been received.

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. 

In this case, American Fire provides that at the time of the subject accident, Landeros was operating Karbonous’ vehicle, and that American Fire is the insurance company for Defendants.  American Fire asserts it has been unable to contact or locate Landeros, and therefore, Landeros is not cooperating in the defense of this matter.  American Fire adequately establishes a direct and immediate interest in the litigation, and the inability to locate its insured requires permission to intervene.  Further, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

The motion is granted.  American Fire’s proposed Answer in intervention filed on June 2, 2022, is deemed filed this date.   

American Fire 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 28^th day of October 2022