Hodge

Hodge v. KIRKPATRICK DEVELOPMENT, INC.

Good Law
130 Cal. App. 4th 540·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 986·2005 D.A.R. 7399·2005 Daily Journal DAR 7399·30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 21, 2005G034361California5,577 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

I. Introduction

Did the trial court err in denying the motion of State Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm) for leave to intervene in a construction defect lawsuit brought by State Farm’s insureds, Douglas M. Hodge and Kylie Schuyler Hodge (the Hodges), against third party tortfeasors? State Farm obtained partial subrogation rights against the third parties by paying a portion of the Hodges’- claims for property damage to their house. We hold State Farm has a statutory right to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (b) and therefore reverse.

II. Facts and Proceedings in the Trial Court

State Farm issued the Hodges a homeowners insurance policy (the Policy) covering certain risks to their house in Laguna Beach. The Policy grants State Farm subrogation rights against third parties who cause losses for which the Policy provides benefits. The subrogation paragraph in the Policy’s conditions states, in part: “An insured may waive in writing before a loss all rights of recovery against any person. If not waived, we may require an assignment of rights of recovery for a loss to the extent that payment is made by us.”

In December 2002, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.