STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOOYOUNG LEE

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC05452    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION TO INTERVENE

(CCP § 387)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Prospective Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Loya is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of June 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of June 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On June 5, 2019, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for subrogation against Defendant Joo Young Lee (“Defendant”).

On March 27, 2020, prospective intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya”) filed the instant Motion for Leave to Intervene (the “Motion”). On May 1, 2020, Defendant filed an Answer. To date, no opposition to the Motion has been filed.

1. Legal Standard

Intervention is permitted 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.)

1. Discussion

The instant action arises out of an automobile accident that occurred on or about October 11, 2017. (Compl., ¶ 7.) Loya argues it was Defendant’s insurer at the time of the accident. (Mot., Oakes Decl., ¶ 3.) As evidence, Loya submits a declaration from its attorney stating that Loya insured Defendant for the period in which the accident occurred. (Id.). However, “[w]here the facts stated do not themselves show it, such bare statement of the affiant has no redeeming value and should be ignored.” (Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 741, 754.) Loya did not submit any documentary evidence, such as a sworn declaration from one of its agents, in support of its assertion. Thus, the Court cannot find that Loya was Defendant’s insurer at the time of the accident.

Notably, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint on May 1, 2020. In its original Motion, Loya argued that, despite extensive efforts, it had been unable to contact or locate Defendant, who, at the time, had not yet appeared in the action. (Mot., Oakes Decl., ¶¶ 4-7.) It further argued it needed to intervene to protect its interests. (Mot., Oakes Decl., ¶ 12.) Indeed, it is undisputed that an insurance carrier would have an interest in an action against its insured, as the carrier would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against its insured. (See Cal. Ins. Code, § 11580, subd. (b)(2); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) However, now that Defendant has filed an Answer, Loya has not explained why its interests are not adequately represented by Defendant.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Prospective Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Loya is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.