SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Krystyn Chavez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jose Torres Carballo, Retail Baking LLC, Wholesome Melrose Baking Inc., and Mehran Termechi for damages arising out of an automobile v. pedestrian accident.   

At this time, AmGUARD Insurance Company (“AmGUARD”) moves for leave to intervene in the case, contending that it is the commercial automobile insurer for Retail Baking LLC. AmGUARD argues it has a direct interest in the litigation due to the insurance policy issued to its insured, Retail Baking LLC, which is currently a suspended corporate entity and unable to defend itself in this action against it.  

The motion is unopposed. 

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

“An intervention takes place when a¿nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes¿a party to an action or proceeding between other persons¿by doing any of the following:¿(1) Joining a¿plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint.¿¿(2) Uniting with a defendant¿in resisting the claims of¿a¿plaintiff.¿¿(3)¿Demanding¿anything¿adverse¿to both¿a¿plaintiff and a defendant” (CCP¿§¿387(b)(1)-(3).)¿ “A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex¿parte¿application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed¿complaint¿in intervention or answer in intervention and set¿forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.”¿(CCP¿§ 387(c).)  

“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.”¿¿(CCP¿§ 387(d)(1)(A)-(B).) “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.”¿¿CCP¿§ 387(d)(2).¿  

The court permits intervention when the¿following factors are met: (1) the proper procedures have been followed; (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.¿ (Siena Court Homeowners¿Ass’n¿v. Green Valley Corp.¿(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1428.)¿ CCP¿§ 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.¿(Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California¿(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1200.).   

 

III. DISCUSSION  

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).)¿ 

AmGUARD declares that it issued the applicable automobile insurance policy to Retail Baking LLC and that it seeks to intervene pursuant to the terms of its insurance agreement, and that it would ultimately be responsible for satisfaction of any judgment against Retail Baking LLC by Plaintiff. This, AmGUARD avers it has a direct interest in this lawsuit, and that its intervention will not enlarge or present any new issues.  

Here, the Court finds that AmGUARD may be exposed to liability for any judgment taken against Retail Baking LLC.¿ AmGUARD thus has sufficient interest to intervene in this action to protect its interests. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, AmGUARD’s motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED.  AmGUARD is ordered to file a separate copy of its complaint-in-intervention lodged with the instant motion, and to serve upon all parties a copy of the same within ten (10) days of the Court’s order.  

 

AmGUARD is ordered to give notice.