Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV10200, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

On May 8, 2023, Plaintiff Elisa Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Justin Roger Ring for negligence based on a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleges Justin Roger Ring (“Ring”) was operating the subject vehicle. Ring has not appeared in this action.

On October 22, 2024, Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company (“Blue Hill”) brought its motion to intervene in this action on behalf of Ring, its insured.

Per CCP §387(a), permissive intervention is proper if: the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation; 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. 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. Code §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. (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Wells) (2000) 84 CA4th 383, 386–387.)

As stated above, Blue Hill is Ring’s insurer, and provided him coverage at the time of the subject accident. Blue Hill asserts that Ring cannot be contacted, and thus has failed to defend this case. (Adablah Decl. ¶ 5.)

Blue Hill holds a direct and immediate interest under “Section 11580,” which allows a judgment creditor to proceed directly against a defendant’s liability insurance to obtain satisfaction of the judgment up to the policy limits. Therefore, intervention by the insurer is justified if a judgment creditor has obtained or will obtain a default judgment in a third-party action against the insured (Jade K. v. Viguri (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1468).

The request for leave to intervene is also timely. The case has only been pending since May 2023, and Blue Hill demonstrates that Plaintiff has been unable to serve Ring personally or by substitute service. Blue Hill’s efforts to locate Ring have also been unsuccessful. No opposition to this motion has been filed, and no prejudice to other parties has been alleged.

Thus, the court grants the present motion to intervene. Blue Hill shall file and serve its proposed answer-in-intervention within 10 days.[1]

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@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.

[1] Blue Hill labels this as a complaint in intervention, but it is intervening on behalf of Ring, who is a defendant. Furthermore, the pleading contains affirmative defenses.