6600 Plaza Square, LLC et al v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Intervene. The Clerk's Office shall file their Complaint for Intervention (R. Doc. 4-2) into the record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Scott D. Johnson on 1/17/2023. (KAH)

Case 3:22-cv-00647-BAJ-SDJ

Document 7

01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
6600 PLAZA SQUARE, LLC, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 22-647-BAJ-SDJ

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD’S LONDON, et al.

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Intervene (R. Doc. 4) filed by GeoVera Specialty
Insurance Company and Transverse Specialty Insurance Company on September 20, 2022. No
opposition to this Motion has been filed, and the deadline for doing so has passed.1 As explained
below, this Motion is granted.
This case arises from alleged damage to a commercial building caused by Hurricane Ida.2
Proposed Intervenors “subscribe to the same Account Policy as the Defendants named in the
original state court petition.”3 As “Plaintiffs seek to collect proceeds from the Account Policy and
bad faith penalties against the insurers on that Account Policy,” Proposed Intervenors claim they
“have legal and contractual rights and a legally defensible interest in the litigation, [which] will be
severely prejudiced if not permitted to intervene.”4

Proposed Insurers, therefore, request

“interven[tion] in this matter as of right, or, in the alternative, permissively.”5

1

In their Motion for Leave to Intervene, Proposed Intervenors certify that no Party objects to their intervention.
However, they state that both Plaintiffs, as well as Defendant AmRisc, LLC, had not responded at the time the Motion
was filed. R. Doc. 4-5.
2
R. Doc. 1-2 at 4.
3
R. Doc. 4 at 1.
4
Id. at 1-2.
5
Id. at 1.

Case 3:22-cv-00647-BAJ-SDJ

Document 7

01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

“Rule 24(a) provides that the court must permit anyone to intervene who (1) is given an
unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute or (2) claims an interest relating to the property
or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may
as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing
parties adequately represent that interest.” Hanover Ins. Co. v. Superior Labor Servs., Inc., 179
F.Supp.3d 656, 666 (E.D. La. 2016) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)). Proposed Intervenors cite to no
federal statute giving them an unconditional right to intervene. “Absent a statute giving a right to
intervene, Rule 24(a) imposes four requirements for intervention as of right: (1) timeliness, (2) an
interest relating to the subject matter of the main action, (3) at least potential impairment of that
interest if the action is resolved without the intervenor, and (4) lack of adequate representation by
existing parties.” Id. (quoting Vallejo v. Garda CL Sw., Inc., No. 12-0555, 2013 WL 391163, at
*5 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2013)).
Here, Proposed Intervenors have satisfied these four requirements. Their Motion to
Intervene was timely, having been filed a mere four days after the matter was removed to this
Court and less than one month after this matter was originally filed in state court.6 Proposed
Intervenors have an interest relating to this action, as they subscribe to the Account Policy
allegedly implicated in Plaintiffs’ Petition as the commercial property insurance policy covering
their property when it suffered damage caused by Hurricane Ida.7 Their ability to defend this
interest, however, will be impaired if they are not allowed to intervene. As aptly explained by
Proposed Intervenors, who subscribe to a “14.5% share of the Account Policy,” arbitration of this

6

R. Docs. 1, 1-2.
R. Doc. 1-2 at 4-5. The Court notes that Plaintiffs cite to policy number 744515 repeatedly in their Petition. Per
Proposed Intervenors, this policy is a former policy that was in effect when Hurricane Zeta hit and was implicated in
a prior suit in this Court. Per Proposed Intervenors, while they did not subscribe to that former policy, which they
claim is cited in this case as a mistake or oversight, they do subscribe to the policy in effect during the time of Hurricane
Ida. R. Doc. 4-1 at 3.

7

Case 3:22-cv-00647-BAJ-SDJ

Document 7

01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

case, which is the subject of a still-pending motion, could proceed without them, with Plaintiff
possibly suing Proposed Intervenors in state court and thereby opening the possibility of an
outcome inconsistent with those of the other insurers.8

Finally, while the existing insurer

Defendants likely have a similar position in this litigation as Proposed Intervenors, there is no
guarantee of this. As no entity would be directly representing their 14.5 % share of the potential
liability under the Account Policy here at issue, the Court acknowledges that Proposed Intervenors’
interests may not be adequately represented by the existing Parties. As all four requirements for
intervention as of right have been met, and as this Motion to Intervene is not opposed, the Court
will grant Proposed Intervenors’ Motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Intervene (R. Doc. 4) filed by GeoVera
Specialty Insurance Company and Transverse Specialty Insurance Company is GRANTED, and
the Clerk’s Office shall file their Complaint for Intervention (R. Doc. 4-2) into the record.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 17, 2023.

S
SCOTT D. JOHNSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

R. Doc. 4-1 at 7, 9.