SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Gloria Elisa Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Gabriel Romero, Dawood Salman Habib, Liberty Roadside Service, Inc. (“Liberty”) for damages arising out of an automobile accident.   

At this time, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) moves for leave to intervene in the case, contending State Farm is the commercial automobile insurer for Liberty. State Farm contends it has a direct interest in the litigation due to the insurance policy issued to its insured, Liberty, which is currently suspended by the California Secretary of State 

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).¿  

“It is well settled that the intervener's interest in the matter in litigation must be direct, not consequential, and that it must be an interest which is proper to be determined in the action in which intervention is sought.”¿(Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California¿(1987)¿196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1199-1200.) Furthermore, “the interest which entitles a party to intervene must be an interest in the matter in litigation in the suit as¿originally¿brought, and of such a present, direct and immediate character that the intervener will either gain or lose by the direct effect of the judgment. [Citations.] An intervener cannot be permitted to broaden the scope or function of such special proceeding by urging claims or contentions which have their proper forum elsewhere.”¿(People v. Brophy¿(1942)¿49 Cal.App.2d 15, 34-35 (emphasis in original).)¿¿  

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).)¿ 

State Farm declares that it issued the applicable automobile insurance policy to Liberty and that it is required to defend and indemnity its insured for any judgment up to the policy limits. State Farm challenges the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, arguing it will be irreparably harmed should it not be given leave to intervene. State Farm avers the intervention will not enlarge the issues or interfere with the rights of the original parties to the action.  

Here, the Court finds that State Farm may be exposed to liability pursuant to Insurance Code § 11580 for any judgment taken against Liberty.¿ State Farm thus has a sufficient interest to intervene in this action to protect its interests. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. 

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

 

State Farm is ordered to give notice and to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.