California Court of Appeal

In an insurance coverage action wherein the trial court denied a motion to intervene on grounds that neither public policy nor existing authority would allow for such intervention at the time, the order denying intervention is affirmed where: 1) the intervener had not shown that it met the applicable criteria for permissive intervention under Code Civ. Proc. section 387; and 2) its reliance upon certain cases in support of its position was inapposite.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/23/2008
• Published 04/23/2008

Judges

• HUFFMAN, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Shoecraft & Burton, Robert D. Shoecraft and Michelle L. Burton, San Diego, for Movants and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Susan J. Field and Stephen M. Green, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent Royal Indemnity Company., Berman & Aiwasian, Los Angeles, and Steven M. Haskell, for Defendant and Respondent Century Indemnity Company., Sinnott, Dito, Moura & Puebla, W. David Campagne and J. Karren Baker, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents American Home Assurance Company and New Hampshire Insurance Company., Colliau, Elenius, Murphy, Carluccio, Keener & Morrow and Kevin M. Haithcox for Defendant and Respondent Continental Casualty Company., Woolls & Peer and Jeffrey A. Dollinger, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Yosemite Insurance Company., Dorn G. Bishop, San Diego, for Defendants and Respondents United Enterprises, Inc., United Enterprises, Ltd. and U.E. Limited, L.P.