State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles, B096214

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Citation: 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 178,53 Cal.App.4th 1076
• Decision Date: 26 March 1997
• Docket Number: No. B096214,B096214
• Parties: , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2245, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4037 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 178

62 Cal.Rptr.2d 178 53 Cal.App.4th 1076, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2245, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4037 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Appellant. No. B096214. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California. March 26, 1997.

Page 179

[53 Cal.App.4th 1078] Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Martin H. Milas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Silvia M. Diaz, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Jack T. Kerry, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Appellant.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Jo Ann Montoya and Diron Ohanian, Glendale, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BARON, Associate Justice.

Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereafter "State Farm"), filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court, seeking, inter alia, an order requiring appellant Department of Motor Vehicles (hereafter "the DMV") to identify a purchaser of a car. The superior court ordered the DMV to release this information, and the DMV appealed. We affirm.

FACTS ¹

In February 1992, Brian Moore leased a new Mercedes Benz 500 SL from the Mercedes Benz Credit Corporation (hereafter "MBCC") and obtained an [53 Cal.App.4th 1079] automobile liability policy for the car from State Farm. In August 1993, Moore placed the car on consignment with Celebrity Motorcars, Ltd., (hereafter "Celebrity"), seeking someone to assume his lease payments. Moore alleges that in October 1993, he discovered that Celebrity

Page 180

had closed and that his car was missing. When Moore reported the missing car to the police, they purportedly told him that Celebrity had stolen approximately 20 other vehicles. Celebrity's owner later pled guilty to forgery and theft.

Moore told State Farm he had learned that Celebrity had sold his car to an unknown doctor in Malibu (hereafter "the subsequent purchaser"), and Moore made a claim to State Farm for the car. State Farm resolved the claim by paying $87,654.60 to MBCC. In return, Moore and MBCC transferred title to State Farm.

When State Farm tried to register the car in its name, the DMV declined to do so. The subsequent purchaser disputed ownership through an attorney, but refused to disclose his or her identity. State Farm requested the subsequent purchaser's identity and address from the DMV, which declined to release the information.

In April 1995, Jo Ann Montoya, an attorney for State Farm, submitted a request to the DMV for the subsequent purchaser's name and address pursuant to Vehicle Code section 1808.22, subdivision (c). The DMV refused to release the information without a court order.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 20, 1995, State Farm filed its petition for writ of mandate in the superior court, requesting an order requiring DMV to identify the subsequent purchaser, and to register the car in State Farm's name. Following a hearing on August 23, 1995, the trial court denied the petition in part, but ordered the DMV to release the requested information. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

The DMV contends that the information State Farm seeks cannot be released under Vehicle Code section 1808.22, subdivision (c). ²

A. Mootness

The issue of mootness arises at the threshold of our discussion because State Farm learned the subsequent purchaser's name and address [53 Cal.App.4th 1080] from a source other than the DMV during the pendency of this appeal. The DMV nonetheless urges us to hear this appeal, contending that the issue presented is one of public significance that requires review.

"If an action involves a matter of continuing public interest and the issue is likely to recur, a court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue, even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot. [Citations.]" (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712, 715-716, 106 Cal.Rptr. 21, 505 P.2d 213.) The issue presented here reaches privacy concerns of interest not only to the DMV but to the public it serves. Moreover, it is probable that although the issue arises with some frequency, the DMV is left without guidance from an appellate court because, as here, the party seeking information obtains it from another source without litigation. In our view, this appeal presents a matter of continuing public interest that is likely to recur, and thus satisfies the exception to the general rule against deciding issues that are moot.

B. Vehicle Code Section 1808.22, Subdivision (c)

The issue presented concerns the scope of the exception found in Vehicle Code section 1808.22, subdivision (c), to the privacy provisions of the VEHICLE CODE. SECTION 1808.21³, subdivision (a), provides: "Any residence address in any record of the department is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court, law enforcement agency, or other government agency, or as authorized in Section 1808.22 or 1808.23." Subdivision (c) of section 1808.22 provides: "Section 1808.21 does not apply to an attorney when the attorney states,...