Endurance Assurance Corporation’s unopposed motion for leave to intervene is granted.
The motion is timely. Endurance Assurance Corporation seeks leave to intervene to unite with Defendant 777 Properties I, LLC, in resisting Plaintiffs’ claims arising from a helicopter accident. Endurance Assurance Corporation issued insurance coverage for the subject aircraft pursuant to a commercial general liability aviation insurance policy at the time of the accident. The policy may be subject to Plaintiff’s claims. Endurance Assurance may be obligated to defend and indemnify 777 Properties I, LLC. (Mot. at p. 5; Mkryan Decl., ¶ 5; Ins. Code, § 11580, subd. (b)(2).)
Because a liability insurer agrees to pay any judgment obtained against its insured, it has a right to intervene when an insured is unable to defend. Intervention is necessary to protect the insurer’s own interests because it may be obligated to pay any judgment rendered against its insured. (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386-387; Ins. Code, § 11580; Code Civ. Proc., § 387.)
Here, 777 Properties I, LLC is a forfeited entity according to the California Secretary of State and the California Franchise Tax Board. Therefore, it can no longer defend itself in the matter. (Mkryan Decl., ¶ 6; Exh. A.) No party disputes this assertion. The motion sets forth the grounds for intervention. It includes a copy of the proposed answer-in-intervention. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subds. (c), (d)(1); Mkryan Decl., Exh. B.) Accordingly, the motion is granted.
No later than September 28, 2020, Endurance Assurance Corporation is ordered to electronically file and serve its answer-in-intervention. Endurance Assurance Corporation shall serve its answer-in-intervention pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Endurance Assurance Corporation shall give notice of the ruling.