Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV25529, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV25529, Date: 2023-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25529 Hearing Date: November 13, 2023 Dept: 30

JIANNA BONOMI vs TURO INC., A CORPORATION, et al.

Motion for Leave to Intervene

TENTATIVE

The motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED. Proposed Intervenor is to file its answer-in-intervention within 10 days of this order. Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION

Proposed Intervenor Liberty Mutual seeks leave to intervene in this action on grounds that it is Defendant Dillard’s insurer and thus has a direct and immediate interest in this action as it could be exposed to direct liability pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580(b)(2).

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).)

Proposed Intervenor’s counsel indicates that Proposed Intervenor insured Defendant Dillar during the time when the subject accident occurred. (Custurea Decl., ¶ 8.) Neither Liberty nor retained counsel have been able to reach Dillard and obtain her cooperation in the instant action. Since November 2022, counsel for intervenor has made several attempts to reach Dillard, via letters to Dillard’s last known mailing addresses, all of which have not been responded to. Additionally, defense counsel made multiple attempts to reach Dillard via telephone to no avail. (Custurea Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) To date, Liberty and counsel have been unable to reach or obtain cooperation from Dillard.

As Proposed Intervenor’s counsel has been unable to contact or communicate with Defendant, it appears Defendant is not defending the case such that Proposed Intervenor may be exposed to liability pursuant to Insurance Code section 11580 for any judgment taken against Defendant. Liberty Mutual has shown that it has a direct and immediate interest because it stands to lose by operation of any judgment against it. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California¿(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201 [non-party seeking intervention must show it stands to gain or lose by¿direct¿operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the property or transaction at issue exists]. As such, the Court finds there is good cause to permit Proposed Intervenor to intervene to protect its interests.

Further, allowing intervention would not enlarge the issues, and Plaintiff has not provided any argument that it would. (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 387 [intervention would not enlarge issues in case because insurance company would “almost certainly assert the same defenses which would have been asserted by [defendant]”].)

While Plaintiff argues that Liberty Mutual should have hired a private investigator to locate Defendant, Plaintiff has cited to no authority which would require doing so.

Lastly, Proposed Intervenor has submitted a copy of its answer-in-intervention, as required by CCP section 387(c).