Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00280/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00280-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 42:4000 National Flood Insurance Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

H. DALE CARPENTER, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0280-WS-B

 )

FIDELITY NATIONAL PROPERTY )

AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., )

et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Wachovia Bank, N.A.,

(“Wachovia”), Bankers Insurance Services, Inc. (“Bankers”), and Greg Davis 

(collectively, “the intervenors”) to intervene. (Doc. 31), and on the plaintiff’s motion to

dismiss the motion to intervene on procedural grounds. (Doc. 43). The intervenors have

filed a response to the latter motion, (Doc. 48), which is ripe for resolution.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of a policy of flood insurance, in that

they offered him approximately $89,000 in benefits after Hurricane Katrina when the

plaintiff maintained that the policy limits of $323,300 were due. (Doc. 1). According to

the motion to intervene, Wachovia held the note and mortgage on the subject property

and force-placed flood insurance on it, using Bankers as a broker. The plaintiff recently

filed suit against the intervenors in state court alleging, under various legal theories, that

they failed to obtain adequate insurance on the property. A few days after the motion to

intervene was filed, the parties filed a notice that they have resolved the case by

settlement. (Doc. 42).

The plaintiff argues that the parties’ settlement renders the motion to intervene

moot. (Doc. 43 at 2). The intervenors “agree that the Motion to Intervene should be

dismissed, provided that the terms of the parties’ settlement does not impair the

Case 1:07-cv-00280-WS-B Document 49 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 2
1

The intervenors’ response to the motion to dismiss also addresses two motions to

quash, which are pending before the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 48 at 4-5). In order to bring

its argument to the attention of the Magistrate Judge, the intervenors will need to file and

serve a separate brief addressing those motions.

-2-

Intervenors [sic] interests in either the State Court Action or any other matter relating to

the terms of the Policy issued on the Property.” (Doc. 48 at 4). 

The motion to intervene specifies that the only circumstances under which the

intervenors’ interests in the state action could be impaired in this action would arise were

the Court to rule that the defendants breached the insurance contract by failing to pay the

full loss sustained on the property. (Doc. 31 at 5). Because the case has settled, the Court

will make no such ruling. The intervenors identify no way, outside the state action, that

the settlement could impair their interests, and the Court perceives none. Certainly the

intervenors, as non-parties to the settlement, are not bound by its terms or any factual

statements contained therein. Nor would the intervenors’ position be improved by

intervention, since the parties would still be entitled to settle their dispute without input

from the intervenors, who remain free to pursue the defendants in other litigation. 

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss the motion to intervene is

granted and the motion to intervene is denied as moot.

1

 

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00280-WS-B Document 49 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 2