Aero Spacelines, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 1977 No. Civ. No. 51951Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the superior court erred in ordering the joinder of an insurer as an indispensable party prior to a retrial limited to the issue of damages, as liability had already been established and affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Whether an insurer must be joined as an indispensable party before a retrial limited to the issue of damages.
Whether the trial court may abate an action for nonjoinder of an insurer after liability has been adjudicated and affirmed on appeal.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Lloyds is not indispensable to a determination of the amount of money which the present plaintiffs should recover from the defendant upon the claim established at the first trial.”

“the superior court may not encumber the limited new trial by its order requiring the joinder of Lloyds, and it may not abate the action for the nonjoinder.”

[179]Opinion

FILES, P. J. This mandate proceeding was brought to review an order of the superior court requiring the joinder of an additional party plaintiff at the commencement of a new trial on the issue of damages only.

The underlying superior court action was brought by petitioners (hereinafter plaintiffs) against General Motors Corporation (hereinafter defendant) for damages for negligent injury to an airplane. The case was tried before a jury and a verdict for plaintiffs returned. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for new trial upon the ground of excessive damages, but limited the new trial to the damage issue. Both sides appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the order of the trial court (Aero Spacelines, Inc., et al., v. General Motors Corporation (Nov. 18, 1976) 2 Civ. 46955, not certified for publication).

Following remand, and prior to commencement of the retrial, defendant made a motion in the superior court to require plaintiffs to join Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London (hereinafter Lloyds) as a party plaintiff. Defendant based the motion upon its claim that Lloyds was plaintiffs’ insurer, that . Lloyds had paid a part of the loss sustained by plaintiffs and was to that extent a real party in interest. Defendant further contended that it was an insured under the Lloyds policies, and as such could not be required to pay for the loss insured against.

On June 6, 1977, the superior court made an order abating the action until Lloyds is made a party plaintiff or it is shown Lloyds cannot be joined. In explanation of its order the superior court cited Bank of the Orient v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 588 [136 Cal.Rptr. 741]. The superior court stated: “Further, it does not appear the Court of Appeal in its opinion filed November 18, 1976 in this case addressed the issue of indispensable parties and jurisdiction so there is no law of the case on this issue. Thus, the Court feels it is bound by Bank of Orient.”

The Bank of Orient case involved the joinder of an additional party before trial. We need not and do not consider whether the reasoning of that case would have required the joinder of Lloyds as a party prior to the first trial and the ensuing verdict.

In the case before us, there has been a trial and verdict which decided that defendant was liable to plaintiffs upon the claim there litigated. The new trial must be confined to a determination of the amount of the

Aero Spacelines, Inc. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief