![]() To be eligible for permissive intervention, a party must meet three threshold requirements, including that: (1) it shares a common question of law or fact with the main action (2) its motion is timely and (3) the court has an independent basis for jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims. 21 at 2–6.) Under Rule 24(b), this Court may permit a party to intervene if they assert “a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or -3- fact.” Fed. at 10.) Underlying Plaintiffs respond that (1) Montana public policy provides that the insurance policy exists more for the benefit of Underlying Plaintiffs than for the protection of Clearview Horizons (2) Clearview Horizons may not adequately represent Underlying Plaintiffs’ interests because of their adversity in the underlying lawsuit (3) common questions of law and fact exist because “Underlying Plaintiffs exclusively possess the information as to the exact nature of the harm they suffered, and in what specific circumstances they suffered it” which is relevant to “whether the harm they have suffered falls within MAIC’s insuring agreement” and (4) although MAIC cites some cases in which courts have denied permissive intervention to similarly situated parties, there is no bright line authority requiring denial. at 5–9.) MAIC also asserts that Underlying Plaintiffs “are not better equipped to argue the coverage issues than Clearview Horizons.” (Id. 20 at 3.) MAIC argues that there are no common issues of law or fact between the claims asserted by the Underlying -2- Plaintiffs and this lawsuit because Underlying Plaintiffs’ lawsuit “arise out of the alleged conduct of employees and/or agents of Clearview Horizons and the alleged damages caused to the Underlying Plaintiffs,” while this case “depends on interpreting the coverage limitations contained in the Policy at issue.” (Id. why their interests are not adequately represented by counsel for Clearview Horizons” (Doc. 18 at 2.) MAIC contends that the Underlying Plaintiffs “do not have a direct, substantial, or legally protectable interest in the insuring agreement at issue” in this case, and their “mere economic expectancy is inadequate for purposes of permissive intervention” MAIC further argues that the Underlying Plaintiffs “provide no reason at all. 19 at 3.) Clearview Horizon does not oppose the motion, but Markel American Insurance Company (“MAIC”) opposes the motion. 1 at 3–9.) Underlying Plaintiffs contend that they “directly possess the necessary information for the case’s determination.” (Doc. 19 at 2.) This distinction is potentially relevant because of the terms and coverage exclusions of the insurance policy at issue in this case, particularly the Healthcare Professional Liability Exclusion. 1-2.) Underlying Plaintiffs contend that “uestions exist as to whether” the conduct underlying their lawsuit “constituted simply unreasonable conduct under the circumstances, rather than specifically constituting medical or psychiatric treatment or services.” (Doc. 18.) Underlying Plaintiffs are plaintiffs in the lawsuit underlying the above-captioned insurance coverage declaratory action. Before the Court is Mackenzie Corinne Hoyer, Julianna Peluso, Allanah Terrett, Emily Carter, Stephanie Kaiser, Suzannah Scarcello, Anna Bryant, and Christina Ward’s (“Underlying Plaintiffs”) Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Rule -1- 24(b)(1)(B), Fed. MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company (formerly known as PAYNEWEST INSURANCE, INC.), Third-Party Defendant. CLEARVIEW HORIZON, INC., Counterclaimant and Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. ![]() CLEARVIEW HORIZON, INC., MIKE LINDERMAN, and MICHELE MANNING, Defendants. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CV 21–73–M–DLC Plaintiff, ORDER vs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |