DocketNumber: C.A. No. 96-5823
Judges: <bold><underline>DIMITRI, J.,</underline></bold>
Filed Date: 2/13/1997
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Pursuant to the subrogation agreement, the City of Providence filed a complaint against the defendant on November 4, 1996. Count I of the complaint seeks recoupment of benefits paid to O'Rourke, while Count II seeks relief for a property damage claim1. On January 27, 1997, Vincent O'Rourke filed papers in this court titled "Plaintiff's Proposed Amended Complaint" and "Proposed Complaint by Way of Intervention" alleging negligence and seeking damages for pain and suffering. The defendant has objected to plaintiff's motion to intervene and to amend the complaint.
Rule 24 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure reads in pertinent part:
"24. Intervention. — (a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state 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 impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. (b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state 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. . . ."
Super. R. Civ. P. 24 has been modeled after its federal counterpart, and where case law is sparse in that area, the court will look for guidance to the precedents of the federal courts.Kiros v. Arsenault,
In the instant action, there is no statute available that confers a conditional right to intervene by the party. There is little doubt that the intervenor's application was timely in this instance since application is made only three months after the complaint was filed and discovery is not yet underway. However, the question of whether or not Mr. Napolitano's interests will be impeded must be addressed. Pursuant to G.L. 1956 §
Subrogation has been defined as the substitution of one person in place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right and is a device adopted by equity to compel the ultimate discharge of an obligation by the party who, in good conscience, ought to pay it. U.S. Inv. Dev. v. Dept. of Human Serv.,
The plaintiff is attempting to prove negligence on the part of the defendant. This being the key issue in the case, the request for medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage will necessarily flow from that determination. The interests of the intervenor will be properly represented by the City. Furthermore, the intervenor has not produced any evidence that the existing representation was insufficient to protect his interests, which are identical to those of the City. For these reasons, intervention pursuant to Rule 24 (a) is denied.
Permissive intervention under R.I. Rule Civ. P. 24 (b) may be considered where a party may not intervene as a matter of right. Spangler v. Pasedena City Bd. of Ed.,
Primarily at issue here is the negligence of the parties involved, and the proposed intervention would add little to the elucidation of the matter. As stated above, the interests of the intervenor and the plaintiff are identical, and the intervenor's interests are being adequately represented. Accordingly, the motion to intervene under Super. R. Civ. P. 24 (b) is denied.
It should be noted that Mr. O'Rourke was free to pursue all his causes against the defendant and then look to the City for reimbursement of expenses for the litigation. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has held that subrogors are entitled to pursue their own causes of actions and look to the subrogee for sharing the cost of suits in recovering a sum of money from a third-party tortfeasor in order to reimburse [the state] for cash assistance and medical payments made on plaintiff's behalf. Frey v. Dept.Human Serv.,
The motion to amend the complaint pursuant to Rule 15 (c) is inappropriate at this time since Mr. O'Rourke is not a party to the action. Therefore, the motion to amend is also denied.
Counsel will submit the appropriate judgment.
united-states-postal-service-and-national-association-of-letter-carriers , 579 F.2d 188 ( 1978 )
gertrude-p-fuller-richard-l-grubman-thomas-f-cacciola-and-josephine , 351 F.2d 323 ( 1965 )
Miss Florence Ella Hatton v. County Board of Education of ... , 422 F.2d 457 ( 1970 )
Marteg Corp. v. ZONING BD. OF REVIEW, ETC. , 425 A.2d 1240 ( 1981 )
Nancy Anne Spangler, United States of America, Plaintiff-... , 552 F.2d 1326 ( 1977 )
In Re Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor: Proceedings Re ... , 712 F. Supp. 1019 ( 1989 )
Kirios v. Arsenault , 632 A.2d 15 ( 1993 )
United States Investment & Development Corp. v. Rhode ... , 606 A.2d 1314 ( 1992 )
Hospital Service Corp. v. Pennsylvania Insurance , 101 R.I. 708 ( 1967 )