Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV31413 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in April 2019. Plaintiff Beatriz Ocegueda filed her Complaint against Defendants Samuel Teddy Kim on August 18, 2020. Plaintiff was a passenger in Defendant Kim’s vehicle while he was driving for Uber. Plaintiff alleges Kim negligently drove his vehicle, causing it to crash into a traffic signal pole, causing injuries to Plaintiff.

Proposed Intervenor argues its motion should be granted because it has a direct and immediate interest in the outcome of this litigation as it may be required to satisfy any judgment entered against Kim. Proposed Intervenor is Kim’s liability insurance provider. Additionally, Proposed Intervenor would not prejudice the original parties in the action because allowing the Intervenor to intervene would not delay or impede litigation.

(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.

To establish a direct and immediate interest in the litigation for purposes of permissive intervention, a non-party seeking intervention must show that he or she stands to gain or lose by direct operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the property or transaction at issue exists. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.) “Whether the intervener’s interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case . . . . And section 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.” (Id. at p. 1200.) “In order that a party may be permitted to intervene it is not necessary that his interest in the action be such that he will inevitably be affected by the judgment. It is enough that there be a substantial probability that his interests will also be so affected. ‘The purposes of intervention are to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the judgment . . . .’” (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881-882 (citations and emphasis omitted).

Proposed Intervenor seeks a court order granting leave to intervene on the grounds that it has a direct and immediate interest in the action. Proposed Intervenor alleges it is Defendant Samuel Teddy Kim’s liability insurance provider and that it may be liable for damages in the event of an adverse outcome. Proposed Intervenor and Kim’s Counsel have been unable to contact Kim, necessitating the instant motion for leave to intervene.

Under California law, an insurance carrier who is not a party to an action can intervene on behalf of its insured when the insurance carrier could be subject to a subsequent action under Insurance¿Code¿section¿11580.¿ (See¿Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th¿383, 386,¿(“An insurer’s right to intervene in an action against the insured, for personal injury or property damages, arises as a result of Ins. Code section 11580.”).)¿¿“Section 11580 provides that a judgment creditor may proceed directly against any liability insurance covering the¿defendant, and¿obtain satisfaction of the judgment up to the amount of the policy limits.¿¿Thus, where the insurer may be subject to a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580 by a judgment creditor who has or will obtain a default judgment in a¿third party¿action against the insured, intervention is appropriate.”¿ (Id.;¿see also¿Jade K. v.¿Viguri¿(1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1468¿(permitting an insurer to intervene in lawsuit to litigate liability and damage issues).) “‘Intervention may . . . be allowed in the insurance context, where third party claimants are involved, when the insurer is allowed to take over in litigation if its insured is not defending an action, to avoid harm to the insurer.’” (Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205 (quoting Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 194, 206).)

Here, Proposed Intervenor is the insurer for Kim. (Mickels Decl., ¶3.) Proposed Intervenor’s motion is supported by a declaration by Kim’s Counsel, Cory J. Mickels, who is the attorney of record for Kim in this action. (Id., ¶1.) Kim’s Counsel, who have also been retained by Proposed Intervenor, made “numerous attempts to contact [Kim] to obtain information related to this incident and to defend the lawsuit.” (Id., ¶5.) Kim “has not responded to any calls or correspondences.” (Id.) Counsel “served a letter of non-cooperation via certified U.S. Mail” on March 2, 2022 “requesting [Kim] to return [their] calls, but have not received a response.” (Id.) Proposed Intervenors then filed the instant motion for leave to intervene.

Intervention may be allowed here because Proposed Intervenor, as Kim’s insurer, may be subject to direct action under Insurance Code section 11580 in the event of an adverse outcome. Kim is no longer defending the action and Proposed Intervenor seeks to intervene in order to defend against the claim on Kim’s behalf in order to defend its own interests. Proposed Intervenor properly notified the other parties in this action of its intention to intervene and received no opposition. As Proposed Intervenor is Kim’s insurer, the motion is granted.