Schacht v. Garner, 83-244

• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HICKMAN; HAYS
• Citation: Schacht v. Garner, 661 S.W.2d 361, 281 Ark. 45 (Ark. 1983)
• Decision Date: 28 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 83-244,83-244
• Parties: James W. SCHACHT, Acting Director, Department of Insurance, State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Linda N. GARNER, Insurance Commissioner for the State of Arkansas, Appellee.

Page 361

661 S.W.2d 361

281 Ark. 45

James W. SCHACHT, Acting Director, Department of Insurance State of Illinois, Appellant, v. Linda N. GARNER, Insurance Commissioner for the State of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. 83-244.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Nov. 28, 1983.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen. of Illinois by Gerald B. Mullin, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., and Gill, Skokos, Simpson, Buford & Owen, P.A., Little Rock, for appellant.

Wood Law Firm, North Little Rock, for appellee.

HICKMAN, Justice.

The Acting Director of the Department of Insurance of the State of Illinois sought to intervene in a suit in Pulaski County concerning the rehabilitation of three insurance companies domiciled in Arkansas. The circuit judge, unable to determine exactly what claim or defense was being advanced, declined to allow intervention, but did not foreclose intervention at a later date.

James W. Schacht, the Acting Director, asserted there were 8,194 policyholders of the three companies who were Illinois residents and their interests needed protection. He also argued that Illinois could be exposed to liability because of an Illinois statute which protects policyholders from defaulting companies. But when the court pressed Schacht to comply with ARCP Rule 24, that is, to state a claim or defense, Schacht could give none. He said: "I don't know what position [we will have] until we know what the Plan is."

Rule 24(c) requires a party seeking intervention to state in a separate pleading the claim or defense to be advanced. This was not done in this case. Essentially the appellant wanted to be a party to keep an eye on the lawsuit; he did not object to reorganization, made no third party complaint, nor did he make any claim.

The judge suggested the motion be held in abeyance until the reorganization plan was submitted, but the appellant formally asked to intervene on the record and the request was denied.

There are two means by which to intervene in a lawsuit: As...