Judge Wesley L. Hsu, Case 21STCV26391 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Proposed Intervenor Scottsdale Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.

This lawsuit arises out of a September 12, 2019 motor vehicle accident on the I-10 westbound.

On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff Richard Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendants United Clean Trucks, Inc. (“United Clean”), Edwin Alexander Olearosas (“Olearosas”) and Does 1-50 for:

On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed two “Amendment[s] to Complaint,” wherein Francisco Jesus Arrieran (“Arrieran”) was named in lieu of Doe 1 and Maria Sanchez (“Sanchez”) was named in lieu of Doe 2.

On February 16, 2022, the court granted A-One Commercial Insurance Risk Retention Group, Inc.’s motion for leave to file an answer-in-intervention.

On May 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein TRAC Intermodal Holding Corp. (“TRAC”) was named in lieu of Doe 3.

On June 22, 2022, TRAC filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against United Clean, Olearosas and Roes 1-50 for:

On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein United Carriers Transport, Inc. (“UCTI”) was named in lieu of Doe 4. On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed another “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Seaco America, LLC (“Seaco”) was named in lieu of Doe 5.

On September 8, 2022, this case was transferred from Department 29 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department.

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Interpool, Inc. dba TRAC Intermodal was named (“Interpool”) in lieu of Doe 6.

On December 1, 2022, Olearosas, UCTI, Arrieran and Sanchez filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Interpool and Foes 1-50 for:

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(2).)

“Pursuant to section 387 the trial court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene where 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.” (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 damage, arises as a result of Insurance Code section 11580[1].” (Id.) The only manner in which an insurer may defend or exercise the powers of its insured suspended corporation is by intervening in the action under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and asserting any defenses on behalf of its insured. (Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 220.)

Proposed Intervenor Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Proposed Intervenor”) seeks an order granting leave to intervene in the instant action and to file its Complaint-in-Intervention, on the basis that its insured, UCTI, has been suspended by the California Franchise Tax Board.

The court determines that intervention is appropriate. On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint, “adding UCTI in lieu of Doe 4. (Ashcraft Decl., ¶ 3). UCTI has been suspended under Revenue & Taxation Code § 23301 and is unable to defend or prosecute any claims in this case. (Id., ¶ 4.) Proposed Intervenor is UCTI’s liability insurer and issued commercial auto liability policy no. CTS0232567, effective from August 7, 2019 to August 7, 2020, with limits of $1,000,000.00. (Id., ¶¶ 5 and 6.)

Based on the above information, it is apparent that Proposed Intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation, because it may be required to satisfy any judgment entered against UCTI, which is presently suspended. In addition, intervention by Proposed Intervenor will not enlarge the issues in this case, as Proposed Intervenor seeks to defend the liability and damages claims against its insured, UCTI, under the conditions and up to the limits of the insurance policy and to reserve its right to raise any coverage issues in a later action under Insurance Code § 11580, should one prove necessary. Proposed Intervenor merely seeks to “step into the shoes” of UCTI.

Plaintiff, in turn, represents that he is not opposing Proposed Intervenor’s request to intervene but takes issue with Proposed Intervenor’s request that Plaintiff’s recovery against UCTI be subject to its policy limits issued by Proposed Intervenor as unsupported and omitted from the notice of motion. The court notes and concurs with Plaintiff’s concern. California Rules of Court rule 3.1110, subdivision (a) states that “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” The court grants the motion; however, the court declines without prejudice Proposed Intervenor’s request that the court order “that Plaintiff’s recovery against UNITED is subject to its policy limits by SCOTTSDALE.”

[1] This provision reads as follows: “A policy insuring against losses set forth in subdivision (a) shall not be issued or delivered to any person in this state unless it contains the provisions set forth in subdivision (b). Such policy, whether or not actually containing such provisions, shall be construed as if such provisions were embodied therein.

(a) Unless it contains such provisions, the following policies of insurance shall not be thus issued or delivered:

(1) Against loss or damage resulting from liability for injury suffered by another person other than (i) a policy of workers' compensation insurance, or (ii) a policy issued by a nonadmitted Mexican insurer solely for use in the Republic of Mexico.

(2) Against loss of or damage to property caused by draught animals or any vehicle, and for which the insured is liable, other than a policy which provides insurance in the Republic of Mexico, issued or delivered in this state by a nonadmitted Mexican insurer.

(b) Such policy shall not be thus issued or delivered to any person in this state unless it contains all the following provisions:

(1) A provision that the insolvency or bankruptcy of the insured will not release the insurer from the payment of damages for injury sustained or loss occasioned during the life of such policy.

(2) A provision that whenever judgment is secured against the insured or the executor or administrator of a deceased insured in an action based upon bodily injury, death, or property damage, then an action may be brought against the insurer on the policy and subject to its terms and limitations, by such judgment creditor to recover on the judgment.”