Attempt at Intervention Fails
Post number 5366
GEICO Requires Commendation and Emulation for its Action Against Fraud Perpetrators
In Government Employees Insurance Co., et. al. v. Tarakchyan D.C., et al., Civil No. 24-cv-6952 (ZNQ)(JTQ), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (May 29, 2026) GEICO sued medical-provider defendants for allegedly submitting thousands of fraudulent insurance charges for unnecessary treatment.
FACTS:
Air Wolf, a non-party defendant in a separate New York auto-accident case involving one of the same claimants, moved to intervene in order to access discovery and settlement materials and oppose confidentiality restrictions.
ISSUE:
Whether Air Wolf was entitled to intervene in GEICO’s federal fraud action under Rule 24, either as of right or permissively.
LEGAL STANDARD
Intervention is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, which outlines the requirements for intervention as of right and permissive intervention. This decision addresses the legal standards for both forms of intervention.
Under Rule 24(a), intervention as of right requires a timely motion, a direct and legally protectable interest in the action, impairment of that interest, and inadequate representation by existing parties.
Under Rule 24(b), permissive intervention requires a common question of law or fact and must not unduly delay or prejudice the existing parties. Rule 24(c) also requires the movant to attach a pleading stating the claim or defense for intervention.
HOLDING:
The court denied Air Wolf’s motion to intervene.
REASONING:
First, the motion was procedurally defective because Air Wolf failed to attach the required pleading under Rule 24(c). Second, Air Wolf lacked a sufficiently direct legal interest: its claims that a settlement might imply liability or create inconsistent results in the state case were speculative and unsupported.
Third, permissive intervention was inappropriate because the overlap between the federal fraud case and the state negligence case was minimal, and Air Wolf’s broad request for access to confidential litigation materials would disrupt and prejudice the parties.
DISPOSITION:
The Motion to Intervene was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
It is important that an insurer, proactively, works to defeat fraud by suing the perpetrators. The information gained from such a lawsuit avoids HIPPA limitations and privacy claims that would help a bodily injury lawsuit. Air Wolf tried to get that information to help its bodily injury lawsuit. GEICO requires commendation and emulation for its action against fraud perpetrators and the court appropriately kept Air Wolf from intervening.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.