Gordon v. Hydrohoist Marine Group, Inc. et al
ORDER - American Reliable Insurance Company a/s/o Matthew Gordon ("American Reliable") moves to intervene in the above-captioned case pursuant to FRCP 24(a) and (b). No parties oppose the intervention. For the reasons set forth below, American Reliable's 19 motion is granted. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for further details. SO ORDERED by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 12/6/2016. (Coleman, Laurie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
16-CV-4845 (JFB) (AKT)
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.
HYDROHOIST MARINE GROUP, INC., and
APPROVED MARINE INC.,
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge:
American Reliable Insurance Company a/s/o Matthew Gordon ("American Reliable")
moves to intervene in the above-captioned case pursuant to FRCP 24(a) and (b). No parties
oppose the intervention. For the reasons set forth below, American Reliable's motion is granted.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), "the court must permit anyone to intervene
who ... 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."
Rule 24 also authorizes the Court to "permit anyone to intervene who ... has a claim or defense
that shares with the main action a common question oflaw or fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(l)(B).
When exercising its discretion to grant an intervention, "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). Under either section (a) or (b) of Rule 24, "an applicant must (I) timely file
an application, (2) show an interest in the action, (3) demonstrate that the interest may be impaired
by the disposition of the action, and (4) show that the interest is not protected adequately by the
parties to the action." Floydv. City ofN.Y, 770 F.3d 1051, 1057 (2d Cir. 2014).
This case arises out of property damage caused to plaintiff Matthew Gordon's boat.
Complaint of Matthew Gordon, ECP No. I, '1['1[ 40-42, 45. American Reliable alleges that it
insured the boat, and, as a result of the property damage of which plaintiff complains and the terms
of his insurance policy with American Reliable, American Reliable indemnified plaintiff for the
loss and itself incurred damages close to or above $100,000.
Complaint in Intervention of
American Reliable, '1['1[ 47-48.
The Court concludes that American Reliable is entitled to intervention. First, American
Reliable has timely filed its application. The complaint was filed on August 30, 2016, ECF No.
I, and Magistrate Judge Tomlinson set the initial case management and scheduling order on
December 5, 2016, ECF No. 23. Furthermore, given the timing of the filing and that neither the
plaintiff nor the defendants object to the intervention, the Court finds that no existing party would
be prejudiced by American Reliable's intervention. See Floyd, 770 F.3d at 1058.
Second, American Reliable has shown an interest in the action, specifically its interest in
the boat damaged by the alleged negligence of the defendant based on American Reliable's
indemnification of plaintiff for this damage. See Restor-A-Dent Dental Labs., Inc. v. Certified
Alloy Prod., Inc., 725 F.2d 871, 874 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A]n interest must be direct, as opposed to
remote or contingent.").
Third, American Reliable has shown that this interest could be impaired as a result of the
plaintiff's action because its rights are subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff to the extent it made
payment to him for the damages complained of. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Mit/of, 193 F.R.D.
!54, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Finally, the Court finds that the plaintiff might not adequately protect American Reliable's
interest, given that an insurance policyholder like the plaintiff does not necessarily have the
incentive to recover the full amount of the loss where his insurer has already reimbursed him for
part of the cost. See Olympus Corp. v. United States, 627 F. Supp. 911, 915 (E.D.N.Y. 1985)
(holding that intervener showed inadequate protection of interest where intervener's "interests, as
well as its perspective and expertise, may differ significantly from those of the [existing parties]"),
aff'd, 792 F.2d 315 (2d Cir. 1986); see also Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S.
528, 538 n. 10 (1972) ("The requirement of the Rule is satisfied if the applicant shows that
representation of his interest 'may be' inadequate; and the burden of making that showing should
be treated as minimal." (quoting 3B J. Moore, Federal Practice 24.09-1 (4) (1969))).
For these reasons, the Court concludes, based on the pleadings, that American Reliable has
adequately alleged that it (I) has "an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the
subject of the action," (2) "is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter
impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest," and (3) existing parties do not
adequately represent that interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). In addition, the Court concludes that
American Reliable has alleged "a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common
question of law or fact," and that intervention will prejudice none of the existing parties. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(b)(l)(B). Therefore, American Reliable's motion to intervene is granted.
s/ Joseph F. Bianco
J eph F. Bianco
nited States District Judge
Dated: December 6, 2016
Central Islip, New York
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?