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

Summary

The court held that review of an order denying intervention as a matter of right is de novo and that the Underwriters were not too amorphous to intervene because the policies and syndicates could be identified and the individual subscribers could be determined. It further held that the Underwriters satisfied all three Rule 24(a)(2) requirements: they had interests in the insurance contracts, those interests could be impaired, and the broker defendants did not adequately represent them. The order denying intervention was reversed and the case was remanded. Justice Hart, concurring, agreed with the result but would have applied abuse-of-discretion review and would have required fuller consideration of the circuit court's stated grounds for denial.