Infinity Select Insurance Company v. Cresencio Campos, Jose Ulises Campos aka Jose Ulises Campos Lopez, Sierra Nevada Labor, Inc., Oscar A. Aceves, Martha B. Maciel, Angelica M. Gutierrez, Maria N. Haro, Jose De Jesus Aceves, Maria G. Aceves, Prospero O. Aceves, Jose Luis Aceves

Opinion

INFINITY SELECT INSURANCE ) Case No.: 1:24-CV-00803 JLT SKO COMPANY, ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF INFINITY SELECT ) INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR v. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) CAMPOS AKA JOSE ULISES CAMPOS ) LOPEZ, SIERRA NEVADA LABOR, INC., ) MACIEL, ANGELICA M. GUTIERREZ, ) ACEVES, MARIA G. ACEVES, PROSPERO ) DOES 1-30, ) ) Defendants. )

This is a declaratory judgment action regarding coverage under a commercial automobile insurance policy. Plaintiff Infinity Select Insurance Company (“Infinity”) filed this action seeking a ruling that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendants Cresencio Campos (“Mr. Campos”), Jose Ulises Campos aka Jose Ulises Campos Lopez (“Jose”) and Sierra Nevada Labor, Inc. (“Sierra Nevada Labor”) (collectively “the Campos defendants”) in an underlying wrongful death action entitled Aceves, et al. v. Sierra Nevada Labor, Inc., et al., Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU302372 (“the underlying action”) filed by defendants Oscar A. Aceves, Martha B. Maciel, Angelica M. Gutierrez, Maria N. Haro, Jose de Jesus Aceves, Maria G. Aceves, Prospero O. Aceves and Jose Luis Aceves (collectively “the Aceves claimants”). The Aceves claimants are the heirs of decedent Maria Consuelo Aceves (“Mrs. Aceves”), who died after she was struck by a vehicle owned by Mr. Campos and driven by Mr. Campos’ son, Jose. The Aceves claimants have previously stipulated to be bound by any judgment between Infinity and the Campos defendants in this declaratory judgment action (see Doc. 19), and thus the Aceves claimants are not participating in the present action. The only parties participating in this action are Infinity and the Campos defendants. Infinity has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the commercial auto policy it issued to Mr. Campos specifically excludes coverage for any accident that occurs while Mr. Campos’ son Jose is driving an insured auto, and thus Infinity has no duty to defend or indemnify the Campos defendants in the underlying action. (See Doc. 28.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the Campos defendants have filed a notice stating they do not oppose Infinity’s motion. (See Doc. 29.) Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, affidavits, and other supporting papers demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ .P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Court, having reviewed the filings in this action and the applicable law, will grant Infinity’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated in Infinity’s moving papers. The undisputed evidence shows that when Mr. Campos applied for the Infinity policy, Mr. Campos signed a statutorily-authorized endorsement by which Mr. Campos agreed that the Infinity policy would exclude coverage for any loss involving vehicles operated by certain designated persons, including his son, Jose. Here, Mr. Campos’ son Jose, a specifically excluded driver, was operating Mr. Campos’ truck when Jose was involved in the accident that resulted in Mrs. Aceves’ death. Because the accident occurred while Jose, an excluded driver, was driving Mr. Campos’ truck, the Infinity policy does not potentially cover any liability the Campos defendants might have to the Aceves claimants in the underlying action. See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.1(d)(1); Associated Indem. Corp. v. King, 33 Cal. App. 3d 470, 473-474 (1973; Yamasaki v. Mercury Casualty Ins. Co., 11 Cal. App. 4th 830, 833-834 (1992); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 190 Cal. App. 3d 242, 246 (1987). In short, the Infinity policy clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage for any accident that occurs while Mr. Campos’ son Jose is driving an insured auto. Because the excluded driver endorsement applies in this case, Infinity is entitled to summary judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify the Campos defendants in the underlying action. The Clerk of the Court is therefore directed to enter a judgment declaring that plaintiff Infinity Select Insurance Company has no duty to either defend or indemnify defendants Cresencio Campos, Jose Ulises Campos aka Jose Ulises Campos Lopez or Sierra Nevada Labor, Inc. in the underlying action entitled Aceves, et al. v. Sierra Nevada Labor, Inc., et al., Tulare County Superior Court Case No. VCU302372. The Clerk is further directed to close this case. Dated: _ December 20, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-