Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 19LBCP00356, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19LBCP00356 Hearing Date: August 4, 2022 Dept: S27
Plaintiff, Lawrence Eber filed this
action against Defendants, Veterans Care Coordination, LLC (“VCC”), AVCC, LLC (“AVCC”),
Stacy John Sanchez, Stacy’s In Home Care, Inc. (collectively “Stacy’s”), and American
Veterans Group (“AVG”) for damages arising out of an alleged scheme to fraudulently
poach his pension. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges he is a veteran who suffers from alcoholism and various
medical ailments. In 2016, he became a
resident at Cabrillo Village (“The Village”); his residency was through U.S. Vets,
which provides housing services for veterans.
While a resident at The Village, Plaintiff met Dawn Thompson. Plaintiff trusted Dawn, and Dawn told Plaintiff
she would help him obtain a VA caregiver due to his difficulty performing his
necessary chores.
Plaintiff’s complaint includes
causes of action for:
·
Fraud (VCC, Sanchez, AVG);
·
Fraud – Concealment (all defendants);
·
Conspiracy to Defraud (all defendants);
·
Breach of Fiduciary Duty (all defendants);
·
Conversion (all defendants);
·
Negligence (all defendants);
·
Financial Elder Abuse (all defendants);
·
Common Count for Money Had and Received (all
defendants);
·
Accounting and Imposition of Constructive Trust and/or
Equitable Lien (all defendants);
·
Declaratory Relief (all defendants).
a.
Relief Sought
American Assurance Company insures
Stacy’s In Home Care, Inc., Stacy Sanchez, and Liliana Juliano. It seeks leave to intervene in this action
for the purpose of participating in the jury instruction conference to present
and argue for the submission of a limited number of jury instructions and
special interrogatories to the jury that will clarify the jury’s findings of
fact relevant to insurance coverage.
b.
Opposition
Plaintiff and Stacy’s oppose the motion, arguing there is no authority
for the relief sought, and intervention is not appropriate.
c.
Analysis
Insurance companies do not
typically have the right to intervene in actions in which their insureds are
involved. See California Physicians’
Service v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 91, 96. In Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Superior
Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1212, the Court explained that
liability insurers cannot intervene in tort actions against their insureds to
contest whether the claim against the insured is covered by the policy.
Great American cites no authority
permitting intervention under the circumstances. Indeed, it is not clear what “complaint-in-intervention”
would be filed, as Great American seeks leave to participate in the jury
conference and the drafting of interrogatories for the jury. While the Court understands Great American’s
position, it is the same position any insurer finds itself in when its insured
has been sued on intentional and negligent tort theories. If the Court permitted Great American to
intervene, it would have to permit every insurance company whose insured is
sued on both covered and non-covered claims to participate in the litigation. This is, quite simply, not how coverage
disputes are handled. The motion is
denied.
Great American is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit
on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as
directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative
and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.
If a party submits on the tentative, the
party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party
submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the
party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this
matter.