Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV12016, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

On April 8, 2022, Plaintiff Jakob Abergil brought this motor vehicle negligence action against Defendant Ashley Nicole Ellis. Plaintiff alleges that on January 5, 2021, around 10:42 p.m., Defendant negligently operated a 2014 Fiat 500 and collided with Plaintiff while driving southbound on Winnetka Avenue in the City of Northridge.

On December 12, 2022, Metromile Insurance Company (“Metromile”) specially appeared to file this motion for leave to intervene. The motion is unopposed.

“A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 387(c).)

“(1) The 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.

(2) The 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).)

“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.)

Here, Metromile meets all the Reliance Ins. Co. factors. First, the proper procedures have been followed. Metromile has petitioned the Court by noticed motion and included a copy of the proposed answer-in-intervention. (Bolin Decl., Ex. I.)

Second, Metromile has a direct and immediate interest in this action. Metromile insured Defendant when the alleged accident occurred. Should Plaintiff enter a default judgment against Defendant, Plaintiff could then proceed against Metromile under Insurance Code section 11580, which permits a judgment creditor to proceed directly against any liability insurance covering the defendant. Thus, intervention is appropriate because Metromile may be required to satisfy any default judgment entered against Defendant.

Case law also supports Metromile’s right to intervene. “An insurer's right to intervene in an action against the insured, for personal injury or property damage, arises as a result of Insurance 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.” (Reliance Ins. Co., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at 386-387.)

Third, intervention will not enlarge the scope of issues in this litigation. As reflected in its proposed answer-in-intervention, Metromile seeks only to litigate liability and damage issues as they relate to Defendant. (See Bolin Decl., Ex. I.) Intervention is appropriate because Metromile’s proposed answer is limited to issues raised by the pleadings.

Fourth, the benefits of allowing Metromile to intervene outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action. Intervention will conserve judicial resources and expediency by eliminating the need for a separate action between Plaintiff and Metromile. For the reasons stated above, denial of intervention would prejudice Metromile. And there is no opposition to this motion.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court