Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV19209, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19209    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 27

HON. LEE S. ARIAN

DEPARTMENT 27

TENTATIVE RULING

 

Hearing Date:           3/28/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name:       23STCV19209 VERTIN FERRETIZ vs SH&H INC¿ 

Motion:                    MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Moving Party:           Defendant in Intervention Houston Specialty Insurance Company

Responding Party:    Unopposed

Notice:                      Sufficient

 

Ruling:                    MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED.

 

Legal Standard

 

CCP section 387(d) provides the following: 

 

(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:  

 

(A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene. 

 

(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).) 

 

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).¿ 

 

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).)¿ 

 

Background and Analysis

 

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident lawsuit against Defendant Sammy Estrada and SH&H Inc. At the accident's time, Estrada was employed by SH&H, Inc. The intervening Defendant, Houston Specialty Insurance Company, was SH&H, Inc.'s insurer at the time of the accident. On August 21, 2021, SH&H became a forfeited company and remains in such a status, thereby unable to defend itself. Houston now moves the Court to intervene on behalf of SH&H.

 

Intervention is permissible here because the Proposed Intervenor, as Defendant’s insurer, could be subject to direct action under Insurance Code section 11580 should there be an unfavorable judgment. SH&H remains a forfeited company and, as such, is unable to defend itself. The Proposed Intervenor intends to intervene to defend against the claim on behalf of Defendant SH&H and to protect its own interests. The Proposed Intervenor has notified all parties in this action and received no opposition. Consequently, the motion is GRANTED.

 

Moving Party is ORDERED to file its pleading-in-Intervention within 20 days of today and to give notice.

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

 

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.