The Belmont Companies v. Western Royalty Ins. Services CA2/1

Filed 5/1/15 The Belmont Companies v. Western Royalty Ins. Services CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE BELMONT COMPANIES, B254441

Cross-complainant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC437338) v.

WESTERN ROYALTY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.,

Cross-defendant and Respondent;

JOHN MARTONI et al.,

Movants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Ronald M. Sohigian, Judge. Affirmed. ______ Joshua R. Furman for Movants and Appellants. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker and Ian A. Stewart for Cross- defendant and Respondent. ______

John and Patricia Martoni appeal from the order denying their motion for leave to file a complaint in intervention in a cross-action for indemnity brought by the Belmont Companies (Belmont) against Western Royalty Insurance Services, Inc. (Western Royalty). The Martonis contend that the denial of the motion constituted an abuse of discretion. We disagree and thus affirm order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Wrongful Death Action and the Declaratory Relief Action and Cross-action In 2008, the Martonis’ son was killed when shot by Stanley Park. In 2009, the Martonis sued Park and the Belmont Companies, among others, for wrongful death. (Martoni v. Park (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2009, No. NC053835).) The Belmont Companies, which owned and operated the bar outside where the son had been shot, tendered defense of the action to Landmark American Insurance Company (Landmark), its general liability carrier. Landmark defended the action under a reservation of rights. Landmark instituted this case against Belmont in 2010 seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Belmont in the wrongful death action because its policy contained an exclusion for assault and battery coverage. Later in 2010, Belmont filed a cross-action against Western Royalty Insurance Services, Inc., its insurance broker, alleging that Western Royalty had assured Belmont that assault and battery coverage was included in its policy with Landmark. In 2011, Landmark moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, and obtained a judgment providing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Belmont in the wrongful death action. Landmark withdrew its defense of Belmont in the wrongful death action. At some point, Belmont’s liquor liability carrier began defending Belmont in the wrongful death action, although the terms of that defense are not clear from the record.1