Judge Richard S. Whitney, Case Number: 37-2020-00003343-CU-IC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2020-00003343-CU-IC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 30, 2024

05/31/2024 10:30:00 AM C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Insurance Coverage Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00003343-CU-IC-CTL MOUSSAVIAN VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEVER CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF SAN DIEGO FROM CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

Plaintiff Dr. Mehran Moussavian's ('Plaintiff') seeks to sever the claims against Defendant CITY OF SAN DIEGO ('City') and Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company ('Defendant') such that the claims against Defendant are tried first. The parties agree that Plaintiff's claims against the City and Defendant should be severed, but they disagree as to why and as to which claims should be tried first.

The Court may sever claims, change the order of the presentation of claims and defenses, and make such orders as are necessary to further convenience and/or to avoid prejudice under CCP sections 379.5, 598, and 1048(b).

Plaintiff asserts that Evidence Code section 1155 will apply to support its argument as to severance.

Evidence Code section 1155 does not apply under the circumstances of this case. Evidence Code section 1155 provides that '[e]vidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.' (Evid. Code, � 1155.) As Plaintiff acknowledges, Evidence Code section 1155 is applied 'to preclude plaintiffs from offering evidence that a defendant stated, after an accident, that he had liability insurance to cover the plaintiff's injuries.' Plaintiff is not attempting to admit evidence of the City's insurance for loss related to Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff is concerned with precluding evidence as to Plaintiff's insurance. Further, evidence as to Plaintiff's insurance could be relevant to issues that are not 'to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.' Plaintiff's citation to Evidence Code section 1155 is of no aid. '[W]here the topic of insurance coverage is coupled with other relevant evidence, that topic may be admitted along with such other evidence.' (Blake v. E. Thompson Petroleum Repair Co. (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 823, 831.) While the court in Blake stated 'evidence of a plaintiff's insurance coverage is not admissible for the purpose of mitigating the damages the plaintiff would otherwise recover from the tortfeasor,' such statement was based on the collateral source rule, not Evidence Code section 1155. (Id. at 830.) Finally, this evidentiary issue does not determine which claims should be tried first. The issue should be addressed by a motion in limine.

''[T]he first fact finder may bind the second when determining factual issues common to the equitable and legal issues.'' (Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 14, 33 [Citation omitted].) 'It is well established that, in a case involving both legal and equitable issues, the trial court may proceed to try the equitable issues first, without a jury (or, as here, with an advisory jury), and that if the court's determination of those issues is also dispositive of the legal issues, nothing further remains to be Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3118576 55 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MOUSSAVIAN VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 37-2020-00003343-CU-IC-CTL tried by a jury.' (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 671.) '[R]eviewing courts have emphasized that the better practice for trial courts is to decide equitable issues first for the explicit reason that a jury trial on any legal issues may be avoided.' (Orange County Water Dist. v. Alcoa Global Fasteners, Inc. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 252, 355.) Plaintiff asserts that its equitable claims as to unclean hands and the 'made whole' doctrine preclude Defendant from recovering under its subrogation claim. This Court already considered Plaintiff's arguments in its motion to disgorge the settlement between the City and Defendant. This Court concluded that 'the 'made-whole rule' does not apply in the circumstances at issue' and the unclean hands doctrine is inapplicable. Plaintiff's arguments are unavailing. The claims against Defendant and the City involve both equitable and legal claims. Unfortunately, no party demonstrates that resolution of any particular equitable claim will resolve and render moot the need for a jury trial on any particular legal claim. The Court is not convinced that the equitable claims should determine whether Plaintiff's claims are tried against the City or Defendant first.

Plaintiff argues that after the above purported equitable claims are considered, the claims against Defendant should be tried, prior to the claims against the City. The Court perceives Plaintiff's main concern is that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by the jury knowing Plaintiff was insured. The Court is not inclined to utilize two separate juries to hear the claims against Defendant and the City. The Court believes it will be more efficient to have the same jury hear both matters. Therefore, it is inevitable that the jury will know Plaintiff had insurance in both matters if Evidence Code section 1155 does not preclude the City from presenting evidence as to insurance. However, if Plaintiff's claims against the City are tried first, it is possible to greater minimize the impact of potential prejudice by trying Plaintiff's claims against the City first. The City asserts evidence of insurance is relevant as to mitigation of damages. If such information is admitted, it could be accompanied by an instruction that the information is solely relevant for purposes of mitigation. The Court believes that such instruction would better protect Plaintiff from prejudice than trying the case against Defendant first as the jury would presumably have learned a great deal more about Plaintiff's insurance than presumably would be necessary for the City to present to support their mitigation argument. If a motion in limine is granted to exclude evidence of insurance in the trial as to the City, then the issue of prejudice would entirely be addressed, if the trial as to the City is heard first.

In short, the motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part. Plaintiff's claims against the City and Defendant will be severed for purposes of trial. Plaintiff's claims against the City will be tried first.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3118576 55