Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing to Policy Nos. Llg035083, Llg041386, Eq6564a, Eq6564b, Eq6564c…

Summary

The court held that denial of intervention as a matter of right is reviewed de novo and that the underwriters were not too amorphous to intervene merely because they were identified collectively by reference to specified policies. Because the underwriters had contractual interests that could be impaired and those interests were not adequately represented by the defendant brokers, the court held that they satisfied the requirements for intervention as of right and reversed and remanded. Justice Hart, concurring, agreed with the result but would have applied abuse-of-discretion review and believed all grounds asserted against intervention should have been addressed.