Barnes v. Security Life of Denver

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · March 24, 2020 · No. 18-1487

Summary

This Tenth Circuit case addresses the standard for intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), specifically the "adequate representation" requirement. Denying en banc rehearing, the majority adhered to the "minimal showing" standard from *Trbovich v. United Mine Workers*, holding that a movant need only show representation "may be" inadequate. The dissent argued the panel's interpretation effectively eliminated the inadequate-representation requirement, urging Supreme Court guidance. The case involves an insurance company seeking to intervene in a policyholder lawsuit against another insurer where the existing defendant had incentives to defend the intervenor's conduct.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Writing for the Court
TYMKOVICH; BRISCOE; LUCERO; HARTZ; HOLMES; MATHESON; PHILLIPS; McHUGH; MORITZ; EID; CARSON
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
March 24, 2020
Docket number
18-1487
Procedural posture
Order denying petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Robert Barnes
Disposition
other

Topics

civil procedureinterventionappellate procedurestandard of reviewinsurance

Practice areas

Civil ProcedureInsurance

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in denying Jackson's motion to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) on the ground that Jackson failed to show that its interest was inadequately represented by SLD.

Holdings

  1. The court denied the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
  2. The dissent argues that the panel's interpretation was too broad and essentially eliminated the requirement; the concurrence argues that the panel correctly applied Supreme Court precedent.

Key quotations

It may be time for the Supreme Court to provide guidance to the lower courts on the meaning of 'unless existing parties adequately represent that interest' in Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). (Dissent at 1)
The majority opinion faithfully adheres to the Supreme Court’s longstanding interpretation of Rule 24(a)(2)’s adequate representation requirement and does not, as asserted by the dissent, 'essentially eliminate' the requirement. (Concurrence at 1)
SLD has every incentive in this lawsuit to vigorously defend the conduct of Jackson. (Dissent at 2)

Factual background

The plaintiffs claimed that Security Life of Denver (SLD) breached universal life insurance policies by making improper deductions from cash values. Jackson National Life Insurance Company had taken over administration of some of those policies (the Jackson policies) but had not entered into contracts with the policyholders. Jackson moved to intervene in the lawsuit, arguing that its interests were not adequately represented by SLD. SLD supported the motion, but the plaintiffs opposed.

Procedural history

The plaintiff Robert Barnes sued Security Life of Denver (SLD) for breach of contract related to universal life insurance policies. Jackson National Life Insurance Company, which had taken over administration of some of the policies, moved to intervene. The district court denied intervention. A panel of the Tenth Circuit reversed, allowing intervention. The plaintiff petitioned for rehearing en banc.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…