Restor-A-Dent Dental Laboratories, Inc. v. Certified Alloy Products, Inc., Unigard Mutual Insurance Company, Intervener-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that an interest for intervention as of right “must be direct, as opposed to remote or contingent”
• finding that the proposed intervenor’s interest “depend[ed] upon two contingencies,” a jury verdict and a finding “that [the proposed intervenor] [wa]s not responsible for indemnification of certain types of losses under the terms of the policy”
• affirming denial of motion to intervene where intervenor’s interest was contingent both on defendant’s prevailing in the underlying action and on the result of a separate not-yet-eommenced lawsuit between intervenor and defendant regarding indemnification
• affirming district court’s denial of motion to intervene, in part, because the court would likely require a separate verdict for each cause of action, negating the intervenor’s necessity to intervene
• affirming denial of motion to intervene where insurer’s interest depended on two contingencies
• affirming denial of insurer’s motion for intervention as of right and by permission in un- derlying tort case in effort to clarify whether adverse judg- ment would be covered loss or not

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).