why their interests are not adequately represented by counsel for Clearview Horizons” (Doc. 18 at 2.) MAIC contends that the Underlying Plaintiffs “do not have a direct, substantial, or legally protectable interest in the insuring agreement at issue” in this case, and their “mere economic expectancy is inadequate for purposes of permissive intervention” MAIC further argues that the Underlying Plaintiffs “provide no reason at all. 19 at 3.) Clearview Horizon does not oppose the motion, but Markel American Insurance Company (“MAIC”) opposes the motion. 1 at 3–9.) Underlying Plaintiffs contend that they “directly possess the necessary information for the case’s determination.” (Doc.
Clearview horizon mt professional#
19 at 2.) This distinction is potentially relevant because of the terms and coverage exclusions of the insurance policy at issue in this case, particularly the Healthcare Professional Liability Exclusion. 1-2.) Underlying Plaintiffs contend that “uestions exist as to whether” the conduct underlying their lawsuit “constituted simply unreasonable conduct under the circumstances, rather than specifically constituting medical or psychiatric treatment or services.” (Doc. 18.) Underlying Plaintiffs are plaintiffs in the lawsuit underlying the above-captioned insurance coverage declaratory action. Before the Court is Mackenzie Corinne Hoyer, Julianna Peluso, Allanah Terrett, Emily Carter, Stephanie Kaiser, Suzannah Scarcello, Anna Bryant, and Christina Ward’s (“Underlying Plaintiffs”) Motion to Intervene Pursuant to Rule -1- 24(b)(1)(B), Fed. MARSH & MCLENNAN AGENCY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company (formerly known as PAYNEWEST INSURANCE, INC.), Third-Party Defendant. CLEARVIEW HORIZON, INC., Counterclaimant and Third-Party Plaintiff, vs. CLEARVIEW HORIZON, INC., MIKE LINDERMAN, and MICHELE MANNING, Defendants. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION MARKEL AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CV 21–73–M–DLC Plaintiff, ORDER vs.
0 kommentar(er)
