Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV16012, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 4, 2023

Case Name: Sincerity, Inc. v. Zion, et al.

Case No.: 21STCV17431

Matter: Motion to Sever

Moving Party: Cross-Defendant Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America

Responding Party: Cross-Complainant Zion Ida

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On May 10, 2021, Plaintiff Sincerity, Inc. (“Sincerity”) filed the operative Complaint against Zion Ida for breach of contract and common counts arising from unpaid water mitigation repair services.

On March 17, 2023, Ida filed a Cross-Complaint against Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America (“Travelers”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) insurance bad faith.  Ida alleges that Travelers, his insurer, failed to pay for Sincerity’s services and failed to defend and indemnify Ida against Sincerity’s Complaint. 

Travelers now seeks to sever the Cross-Complaint from this suit based on Evid. Code § 1155.

“The trial court has broad authority to sever the trials of properly joined parties ‘as the interests of justice may require.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 379.5.) Similarly, the court may order separate trials of issues or causes of action ‘in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy.’ (Id., § 1048, subd. (b).)”  (Pilliod v. Monsanto Co. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591, 625.)

Evid. Code § 1155 states, “Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.”

“The evidence [of a party being insured] is regarded as both irrelevant and prejudicial to the defendant.”  (1 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (3d ed. 1986) § 417, p. 391.)

Ida states that he “does not necessarily oppose such request, although for reasons set forth by Ida in his opposition to Travelers’s demurrer and in the Court’s tentative ruling to overrule the demurrer, insurance may be intertwined with Plaintiff’s complaint and Evid. Code § 1155 may not be applicable.”

There being no real opposition, the Court will sever the Cross-Complaint for trial purposes only.  This issue can always be reexamined before trial, which is set for 2025.

The Motion is granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.