Although intervention is a legal proceeding that does not often occur in property insurance claims, one can easily imagine circumstances where a party may try to intervene in an ongoing insurance income lawsuit. Whether an entrepreneur seeking payment from the insurance company for work performed on the insured's property or another interested party seeking to protect their interests, Florida intervention law is well established. The following represents a fairly extensive resource on Florida intervention law.
As a first question, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] anyone applying for an interest in an ongoing dispute may at any time be allowed to assert a right by intervention, but the intervention shall be subordinate and in recognition of the right in the main proceedings, unless the court decides otherwise. 1
The trial court must not only determine that the variable has an interest in the matter in proceedings but also that the interest of the movement has such a direct and immediate character that the intervener either wins or loses through the direct legal effect of the judgment. 3 The interest must be that which is created by a claim on the claim in substance or some part of it; or a claim on, or lien on, the property or any part thereof, which is the subject of disputes. 4 An indirect, insignificant or conditional interest is completely insufficient to support intervention. 5 The fact that an intervener has another measure to protect its property and rights is not an obstacle to its right to intervene. 6
I Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v Carlisle 7 The Supreme Court of Florida repeated a two-part test to determine whether intervention is correct. The trial court must first make a preliminary assessment of whether "the alleged interest is appropriate to support intervention." direct and immediate nature that the intervener will either gain or lose through the direct legal function and effect of the judgment. In other words, the interest must be that which is created by a claim for the claim in a cost or any part thereof, or a claim on or lien on the property or any part thereof, which is the subject of disputes. 9
The trial court must then exercise its good discretion as to whether it is permissible to intervene. In this second part of the test, the Court should “consider a number of factors, including the derivation of the interest, any relevant language of the contract, the size of the interest, the potential for conflicts or new issues and other relevant circumstances. ” 10 This two-step analysis is a compromise between competing and floating interests that is often at stake in damages disputes.
The Court's holding in Carlisle can be summarized as follows: First, the Court of Justice must determine that the interest alleged to be appropriate in support of the intervention. Once the Court of Justice has ruled that the requisite interest exists, it must exercise its discretion to decide whether to intervene. In deciding this issue, the court should consider a number of factors, including (1) the derivation of the interest, (2) any relevant contract language, (3) the size of the interest, (4) the potential for conflicts or new issues and other relevant circumstances. Secondly, the court must determine the parameters for the intervention. The court should not only decide whether the mobile party has a legitimate interest but also to what extent that party should be allowed to intervene. In Carlisle the Court stated that intervention should be limited to the extent necessary to protect the interests of all parties.
In addition, the Court should hold a hearing on the proposal to intervene and reach conclusions in 11 In addition, the rights of an intervener are subordinate to the rights of the parties unless the intervener is an indispensable party. 12 Because the rights of an intervener are subordinate. , a proposal for intervention may not raise issues not addressed in the main action. 13 As the Court declared in National Wildlife Federation Inc. v Glisson 14 and the intervener must accept the pleadings as he finds them and may not raise new issues.
Although most property insurance claims that go to litigation rarely involve an opportunity for intervention, there are times when understanding this legal process can play an important role. Whether a party is trying to intervene or trying to prevent intervention, the rules outlined rule out the possibility of successful intervention in Florida.
1 Fla. R. Civ. S. 1,230
2 Highwoods DLF EOLA, LLC v. Condo Developer, LLC 51 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Superior Fence & Rail of North Florida v. Lucas 35 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
3 Highwoods DLF EOLA, LLC v. Condo Developer, LLC 51 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Superior Fence & Rail of North Florida v. Lucas 35 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Omni National Bank v Georgia Banking Co. 951 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).
4 Harbor Specialty Ins. Co. v. Schwartz 932 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Schindler v. Schiavo 866 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Kissoon v. Araujo 849 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
5 Kissoon v. Araujo 849 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Stefanos v Rivera-Berrios 673 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1996).
6 Bancroft v. Allen 128 Fla. 14, 174 So. 749 (1937).
7 Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle 593 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1992).
8 Id. At 507.
9 Id. (change in original) (citing Morgareidge v. Howey 75 Fla. 234, 78 So. 14, 15 (1918)).
10 Id. at 507-08.
11 Larrain Troncoso v. Ossandon Larrain 273 So. 3d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (reverse order made without and hearing and without results). See also Farese v. Palm Beach Partners, Ltd. 781 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reverse refusal to intervene where the court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the movement's interest in the disputes); Ownby v. Citrus Cty ., 13 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (reverse order that denied intervention where intervention seemed appropriate, the trial court gave no reason to refuse intervention, and no valid reason was apparent in the existing record).
12 See Gaff v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. 129 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); State v. Florida Workers' Advocates 167 So. 3d 500 (Fla. App. 2015); Tribeca Aesthetic Medical Solutions, LLC v. Edge Pilates Corp. 82 So. 3d 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
13 See Ventures Trust 2013-I-H-R v Asset Acquisitions and Holdings Trust 202 So. 3d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Wilson vs. Wilson 211 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
14 National Wildlife Federation Inc. v. Glisson 531 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).