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

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00803
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 INFINITY SELECT INSURANCE ) Case No.: 1:24-CV-00803 JLT SKO COMPANY, ) 12 ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 13 Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF INFINITY SELECT ) INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION FOR 14 v. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) 15 CRESENCIO CAMPOS, JOSE ULISES ) CAMPOS AKA JOSE ULISES CAMPOS ) 16 LOPEZ, SIERRA NEVADA LABOR, INC., ) 17 OSCAR A. ACEVES, MARTHA B. ) MACIEL, ANGELICA M. GUTIERREZ, ) 18 MARIA N. HARO, JOSE DE JESUS ) ACEVES, MARIA G. ACEVES, PROSPERO ) 19 O. ACEVES, JOSE LUIS ACEVES, AND ) 20 DOES 1-30, ) ) 21 Defendants. )

22 23 This is a declaratory judgment action regarding coverage under a commercial automobile 24 insurance policy. Plaintiff Infinity Select Insurance Company (“Infinity”) filed this action 25 seeking a ruling that it has no duty to defend or indemnify defendants Cresencio Campos (“Mr. 26 Campos”), Jose Ulises Campos aka Jose Ulises Campos Lopez (“Jose”) and Sierra Nevada 27 Labor, Inc. (“Sierra Nevada Labor”) (collectively “the Campos defendants”) in an underlying 28 wrongful death action entitled Aceves, et al. v. Sierra Nevada Labor, Inc., et al., Tulare County 1 Superior Court Case No. VCU302372 (“the underlying action”) filed by defendants Oscar A. 2 Aceves, Martha B. Maciel, Angelica M. Gutierrez, Maria N. Haro, Jose de Jesus Aceves, Maria 3 G. Aceves, Prospero O. Aceves and Jose Luis Aceves (collectively “the Aceves claimants”). 4 The Aceves claimants are the heirs of decedent Maria Consuelo Aceves (“Mrs. Aceves”), who 5 died after she was struck by a vehicle owned by Mr. Campos and driven by Mr. Campos’ son, 6 Jose. The Aceves claimants have previously stipulated to be bound by any judgment between 7 Infinity and the Campos defendants in this declaratory judgment action (see Doc. 19), and thus 8 the Aceves claimants are not participating in the present action. The only parties participating in 9 this action are Infinity and the Campos defendants. 10 Infinity has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the commercial auto 11 policy it issued to Mr. Campos specifically excludes coverage for any accident that occurs while 12 Mr. Campos’ son Jose is driving an insured auto, and thus Infinity has no duty to defend or 13 indemnify the Campos defendants in the underlying action. (See Doc. 28.) Pursuant to Local 14 Rule 230(c), the Campos defendants have filed a notice stating they do not oppose Infinity’s 15 motion. (See Doc. 29.) Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, affidavits, and 16 other supporting papers demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that the 17 moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ .P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. 18 Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). 19 The Court, having reviewed the filings in this action and the applicable law, will grant 20 Infinity’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated in Infinity’s moving papers. The 21 undisputed evidence shows that when Mr. Campos applied for the Infinity policy, Mr. Campos 22 signed a statutorily-authorized endorsement by which Mr. Campos agreed that the Infinity policy 23 would exclude coverage for any loss involving vehicles operated by certain designated persons, 24 including his son, Jose. Here, Mr. Campos’ son Jose, a specifically excluded driver, was 25 operating Mr. Campos’ truck when Jose was involved in the accident that resulted in Mrs. 26 Aceves’ death. Because the accident occurred while Jose, an excluded driver, was driving Mr. 27 Campos’ truck, the Infinity policy does not potentially cover any liability the Campos defendants 28 might have to the Aceves claimants in the underlying action. See Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.1(d)(1); 1 Associated Indem. Corp. v. King, 33 Cal. App. 3d 470, 473-474 (1973; Yamasaki v. Mercury 2 Casualty Ins. Co., 11 Cal. App. 4th 830, 833-834 (1992); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 190 3 Cal. App. 3d 242, 246 (1987). 4 In short, the Infinity policy clearly and unambiguously excludes coverage for any 5 accident that occurs while Mr. Campos’ son Jose is driving an insured auto. Because the 6 excluded driver endorsement applies in this case, Infinity is entitled to summary judgment that it 7 has no duty to defend or indemnify the Campos defendants in the underlying action. 8 The Clerk of the Court is therefore directed to enter a judgment declaring that plaintiff 9 Infinity Select Insurance Company has no duty to either defend or indemnify defendants 10 Cresencio Campos, Jose Ulises Campos aka Jose Ulises Campos Lopez or Sierra Nevada Labor, 11 Inc. in the underlying action entitled Aceves, et al. v. Sierra Nevada Labor, Inc., et al., Tulare 12 County Superior Court Case No. VCU302372. The Clerk is further directed to close this case. 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: _ December 20, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-