Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV00237, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00237    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Ramin Ghodsi filed this action against Defendants Jesus Manuel Hernandez (“Hernandez”), Legacy Leasing & Investments, LLC, IMAC Construction, Inc. (“IMAC”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident. 

At this time, American Fire & Casualty Company (“American”) moves for leave to intervene in the case, contending its insured, Hernandez, cannot be located.  American provides that at the time of the accident, Hernandez was operating a motor vehicle in the course and scope of his employment with IMAC.  American states that IMAC has an insurance policy with American under which Hernandez is an insured person. 

Per CCP §387(a), permissive intervention is proper if:

• The nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation; and

• The intervention will not enlarge the issues in the case; and

• The reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the existing parties.

A liability insurer normally cannot intervene in a tort action against its insured to contest whether the claim against the insured is covered under its policy.  The judgment in the tort action collaterally estops the insurer only on issues necessarily adjudicated therein—i.e., the insured's liability and the amount of the injured party's damages. It does not bind the insurer on coverage issues.  (Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Parks) (2011) 199 CA4th 1196, 1212.)  

However, because a liability insurer agrees to pay any judgment obtained against its insured (see Ins.C. §11580(b)(2)), it has the right to intervene (not merely permissive) where an insured is barred from defending itself.  In such cases, intervention is necessary to protect the insurer's own interests because it may be obligated to pay any judgment rendered against its insured (assuming no coverage defenses). (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Wells) (2000) 84 CA4th 383, 386–387.) 

In this case, the Court finds American adequately establishes a direct and immediate interest in the litigation, and the inability to locate its insured requires permission to intervene.  Further, Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

Therefore, the motion is granted.  American is ordered to file a separate copy of its answer-in-intervention within ten days.

Moving Party American is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@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. 

Dated this 27^th day of April 2023