Westland Snacks and Fuel LLC v. Technology Insurance Company, Inc.
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER granting 7 Motion to Intervene. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Westland Snacks and Fuel, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Insurance Company,
Inc.,
Case No. 23-10944
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
Defendant.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING APCO OIL COMPANY,
INC.’S MOTION TO INTERVENE [7]
Before the Court is APCO Oil Company’s (“APCO”) motion to
intervene as a plaintiff under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. (ECF
No. 7.) For the reasons set forth below, APCO’s motion to intervene is
GRANTED.
I.
Background
This case is about an insurance dispute. On July 25, 2021, a fire
occurred at Plaintiff’s place of business (29424 Ann Arbor Trail),
damaging the property. (ECF No. 1-2, PageID.11.) Plaintiff had an
insurance policy with Defendant, which covered the property from loss
due to fire. (Id.) Plaintiff Westland Snacks & Fuel LLC is the named
insured on the insurance policy. (Id. at PageID.15.) Although Plaintiff
notified Defendant of the losses, Defendant did not pay. (Id.)
The insurance policy specifies who is an insured. (Id. at
PageID.111.) Further, the insurance policy has a “Businessowner
Enhanced Expansion Blanket Endorsement,” which amends that section
of the insurance policy to “include as an additional insured any person(s)
or organization(s) from whom you lease land or premises . . . .” (Id. at
PageID.52, 71.)
APCO represents that it is “the owner of the real property and
appurtenant gas station [] at issue in this matter.” (ECF No. 7,
PageID.345.) APCO alleges that APCO and Plaintiff entered into a lease
agreement for the property. (Id.)
Defendant removed this case from Wayne County Circuit Court on
April 24, 2023, (ECF No. 1), and filed an answer to the complaint on May
1, 2023. (ECF No. 3.) The parties filed a joint discovery plan on June 5,
2023, (ECF No. 5), and the Court entered a scheduling order on June 8,
2023. (ECF No. 6.) APCO filed its motion to intervene on July 5, 2023.
(ECF No. 7.)
2
There are related state court proceedings. APCO and Plaintiff have
a pending civil suit in Wayne County Circuit Court, Case No. 22-011876,
which was stayed pending the outcome of this case. (Id. at PageID.350.)
Further, Plaintiff was facing a criminal suit in Wayne County Circuit
Court “arising from the loss on the Property” that was dismissed on April
28, 2023. (Id.; see also ECF No. 12, PageID.445–446.)
II.
Legal Standard
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for intervention of right
and permissive intervention. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Because APCO is entitled
to permissive intervention, the Court need not address intervention as of
right. Buck v. Gordon, 959 F.3d 219, 223 (6th Cir. 2020).
For permissive intervention, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)
provides that the Court may allow intervention when the proposed
intervenor “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a
common question of law or fact.” “In exercising its discretion, the court
must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3);
see also United States v. Michigan, 424 F.3d 438, 445 (6th Cir. 2005).
3
III. Analysis
APCO argues that it is entitled to permissive intervention under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 24(b). Under Rule 24(b), the Court
must first determine the timeliness of the motion to intervene and if
there is at least one common question of law or fact. Buck, 959 F.3d at
223. Then, the Court must balance the risk of undue delay, prejudice to
the parties, and other relevant factors. Id. (citing Michigan State AFLCIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1248 (6th Cir. 1997)). The Court has broad
discretion in making this determination. Id.
With respect to timeliness, courts have considered factors such as
the progression of the case, the length of time an intervenor knew or
reasonably should have known of its interest in the case, and prejudice
to the original parties due to intervention. See Triax Co. v. TRW, Inc., 724
F.2d 1224, 1228 (6th Cir. 1984). In this case, the motion to intervene was
filed about a month after the parties filed a joint discovery plan and the
Court entered a scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 5, 6.) Defendant does not
argue that the motion to intervene was untimely. (ECF No. 12.) Further,
there is no dispute that that APCO’s intervention will not “unduly delay
4
or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 24(b)(3).
As to the requirement that the intervenor present a common
question of law or fact, APCO states that it “possesses claims and
defenses in line with Plaintiff, as recovery of insurance proceeds under
the Policy.” (ECF No. 7, PageID.351). Further, APCO argues that its
interest in the case and its ownership of the property are sufficient to
make this showing. (ECF No. 13, PageID.475.) However, Defendant
contends that APCO has not demonstrated a shared question of law or
fact because APCO has “no claim to assert against [Defendant]” and its
intervention would be fruitless. (ECF No. 12, PageID.452.)
Defendant’s argument that APCO “does not have a legal interest in
this action” does not prevail at this stage of the litigation. Defendant
argues that APCO has “no right to coverage under the Policy” because it
is not a named insured. (Id. at PageID.449–450.) While APCO agrees that
it is not a named insured like Plaintiff, the “Businessowner Enhanced
Expansion Blanket Endorsement” amends the coverage of the insurance
policy to “include as an additional insured any person(s) or
organization(s) from whom you lease land or premises . . . .” (ECF No. 13,
5
PageID.470 (citing ECF No. 1-2, PageID.52, 71).) APCO, as the owner of
the property, allegedly had a lease with Plaintiff, and thus may be an
additional insured under the Policy. As a result, APCO may have an
interest in this action.
Further, APCO has sufficiently presented a common question of
law or fact. The common question of law is whether Defendant breached
Plaintiff’s insurance contract and is indebted to Plaintiff or to APCO. The
same contract must be interpreted to make this determination.
Additionally, APCO’s position on the question would not be so similar to
Plaintiff’s that permissive intervention would be inappropriate. See
Kirsch v. Dean, 733 F. App’x 268, 279 (6th Cir. 2018) (holding that a
common question of law or fact is not necessarily found when the
intervenor would “substantially mirror[s] the positions advanced by one
of the parties”). There are additional portions of the contract that are
relevant to APCO’s claim, i.e., the amendments to the coverage of the
policy.
Because intervention was timely and would not unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights, and because
6
APCO sufficiently presented a common question of law and fact, all of the
Rule 24(b) factors weigh in favor of permissive intervention.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS APCO’s motion
to intervene. (ECF No. 7.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2024
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s
ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on February 5, 2024.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?