Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV03897, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV03897 Hearing Date: October 31, 2023 Dept: 30
ELIZABETH RIVERA ACEVEDO vs DANIEL REYNOSO, et al.
Motion for Leave to Intervene
TENTATIVE
Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED. Proposed Intervenor is instructed to file its proposed answer within five days of the ORDER. Clerk to give notice.
DISCUSSION
“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.” (Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 194, 206.) For example, insurers have been permitted to intervene when the third party has obtained a default against the insured (Jade K. v. Viguri (1984) 210 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1473-1474), or where the insured’s answer has been stricken because its corporate status has been suspended (Reliance Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 385-387).
Here, the Proposed Intervener asserts that it has a direct interest in this action because it may be obligated to pay any judgement rendered against the Insured. (Motion at pg. 6; Lejevardi Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Furthermore, Proposed Intervener asserts that its intervention would not enlarge the action because its defenses would be inline with the ones that would have been raised by the Defendants, and the defenses would be based on the facts presented in this case. (Motion at pp. 6-7.)
Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the Intervener has a direct interest in the litigation to defend against the complaint, and their intervention would not enlarge the issues in the action because they are merely doing so to protect their own interest. Furthermore, the instant motion is unopposed.
Accordingly, the motion to grant leave to intervene is granted.
No opposition was filed against this regularly noticed motion.