STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS GREGORY SEANDEL BAINES

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03721    Hearing Date: September 02, 2020    Dept: 26

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

On April 16, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for automobile subrogation against Defendant Gregory Seandel Baines (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the Summons and Complaint demonstrating that Defendant was served with this action on May 11, 2019. To date, Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading. Non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya Casualty”) filed the instant motion to intervene on February 21, 2020.

The Motion was set for hearing on March 17, 2020, then continued prior to hearing to September 2, 2020. On July 22, 2020, Loya Casualty re-filed the Motion with an amended supporting declaration.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Intervention is allowed when “[t]he 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)(B).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted.  (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Id. at 515.) 

Loya Casualty presents evidence it was Defendant’s insurer at the time of the accident that gives rise to this action. (Motion, First Amended Kabir Decl., ¶3 and Exh. A.) Loya Casualty further presents evidence that it has been unable to locate Defendant to participate in this action. (Motion, Kabir Decl., ¶¶5-7.) It is undisputed that Defendant has not appeared and that his insurer would have an interest as it would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against Defendant. (See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580, subd. (b)(2); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) Nor would intervention enlarge the issues in this action, as it would simply assert defenses on Defendant’s behalf. (Reliance Ins. Co., supra at 386 (citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

Based on the foregoing, Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice.