Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilke Window & Door Co., Inc. v. Peabody Coal Co.

November 7, 2005

WILKE WINDOW & DOOR COMPANY, INC. PLAINTIFF,
v.
PEABODY COAL COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Now before the Court is a Motion to Intervene, filed by Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund (the "Fund"), pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24. (Doc. 14.) Along with the motion, the Fund has filed a supporting memorandum of law (Doc. 15) and proposed intervening complaint. Plaintiff does not oppose this intervention and has, in fact, filed a memorandum in support of the motion to intervene. (Doc. 18.) Defendant has not filed any responsive pleading.

Plaintiff is an Illinois corporation doing business in St. Clair County, Illinois, at a location known as 3506 Lebanon Avenue, Belleville, Illinois, 62221. (Doc. 2, ¶ 1.) At this location, Plaintiff had constructed a large multi-story warehouse (the "Property"). (Doc. 18, p. 1.) Plaintiff originally brought this suit in state court for property damages due to an active mine subsidence, occurring in November 2000, allegedly caused by Defendant.*fn1 (Doc. 2, ¶¶ 3-7.) Defendant is a Deleware corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri, and has mined coal in St. Clair County, Illinois. (Doc. 1, ¶ 5(c), Doc. 4, ¶ 2.) The case was removed by Defendant as federal diversity jurisdiction was claimed to exist, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff made no attempt to seek a remand to state court.

The Fund provides reinsurance for participating insurers writing mine subsidence insurance in the State of Illinois, pursuant to 215 ILL.COMP.STAT. 5/803.1. (Doc. 14, ¶ 1, Doc. 18, p. 1.) After the subsidence damage caused to the Property, but prior to filing suit against Defendant, Plaintiff made a claim on its insurance policy, which was underwritten by Federated Mutual Insurance Company ("Federated"). (Doc. 14, ¶ 2, Doc. 18, p. 1.) Federated paid out the limit of Plaintiff's policy, which was in the amount of $350,000.00. (Id.) Because Federated participates in the Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund program, it sought reimbursement in the amount of $350,000.00 for the pay-out to Plaintiff. (Doc. 14, ¶ 3, Doc. 18, p. 1.) Pursuant to their reinsurance agreement, the Fund reimbursed Federated in the requested amount. (Doc. 14, ¶ 3.)

Pursuant to 215 ILL.COMP.STAT. 5/815.1,*fn2 the Fund now claims that it has a subrogation interest in the amount of $350,000.00 and should therefore be allowed to intervene in this suit in order to protect its interest, which is separate and distinct from Plaintiff's interests. (Doc. 15, pp. 3-4.) For the reasons outlined below, the Fund's motion to intervene is GRANTED.

II. ANALYSIS

A. LEGAL STANDARD

1. Intervention as of Right Under Rule 24(a)

Under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 24, a party can seek to intervene in a suit either as a matter of right, under Rule 24(a), or with the Court's permission, under Rule 24(b). A party may seek to intervene as a matter of right "(1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impeded the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties." FED.RULE CIV.P. 24(a). Therefore, the Seventh Circuit requires an applicant making a Rule 24(a) motion to intervene to show the following: "(1) the application is timely; (2) the applicant has an 'interest' in the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) disposition of the action as a practical matter may impede or impair the applicant's ability to protect that interest; and (4) no existing party adequately represents the applicant's interest." Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Schipporeit, Inc., 69 F.3d 1377, 1380 (7th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).

2. Permissive Intervention Under Rule 24(b)

An applicant may be permitted to intervene in a suit "(1) when a statute of the United States confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common."

FED.RULE CIV.P. 24(b). Further, under Rule 24(b), the Court has a duty to "consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties." FED.RULE CIV.P. 24(b). As such, the Seventh Circuit has imposed two requirements for an applicant filing a Rule 24(b) motion to intervene to demonstrate that there is "(1) a common question of law or fact, and (2) independent jurisdiction." Security Ins. Co. of Hartford, 69 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.