ORDER DENYING PETITION TO INTERVENE

S. ALLAN ALEXANDER, Magistrate Judge.

American States Insurance Company ("ASIC"), insurer of defendants Midwest Technical Institute, Inc. d/b/a Delta Technical College, seeks to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to obtain a determination of whether coverage exists under the policy issued to defendants. Docket 25. Defendants oppose the Petition to Intervene because ASIC is defending this action under a full reservation of rights, its liability is dependent upon the outcome of the case, and therefore it does not have a sufficient interest to justify intervention. Docket 29. After reviewing the motion, response and reply, as well as thoroughly researching this issue, the court concludes that the Petition to Intervene should be DENIED.

In the Petition to Intervene, which did not include citations to case law or other authority in support, ASIC asserts that "it is obvious that intervension [sic] should be allowed so American States Insurance Company might be allowed to address these issues of coverage and not be required to duplicate discovery in a separate matter." Docket 25, p. 2. ASIC claims that it has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of this litigation, and that disposal of the case without it may impair or impede its ability to protect its interests. Id. at 1. ASIC has provided defendants a defense under a full reservation of rights, taking the position that coverage does not exist under the policy for the claims alleged, and if coverage does exist, it is limited, and ASIC's obligations "fully depend on the facts, allegations and discovery in the underlying case." Id. at 2. In its Reply, ASIC invokes Rule 24(a)(2), which states:

ASIC claims that the cost of defense it currently is bearing, as well as the indemnity and other coverage issues, are sufficient interests relating to the claims involved in the litigation to require that intervention be allowed. Docket 35, p. 2.

Alternatively, ASIC requests that the court exercise its discretion and allow permissive intervention via Rule 24(b)1 because the "claims and defenses implicated in the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment share with the underlying civil action common questions of law or fact." Docket 35, p. 3. However, ASIC neither identifies which questions of law or fact are common, nor addresses anywhere in its Petition or Reply the timeliness issue that is a basic premise of Rule 24.

Defendants point to the Fifth Circuit decision in Ross v. Marshall, 456 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2006) for their argument that ASIC's defense of the case under a full reservation of rights means it does not have a sufficient interest in the liability lawsuit as it is. Docket 29, p. 2. As the Circuit said in Ross,

456 F.3d at 443. In Ross the insurer was allowed to intervene on appeal to challenge an adverse liability judgment entered against its insured. ASIC contends defendants' reliance upon Ross is misplaced because the broader questions of the coverages afforded under the policy at issue and the insurer's duty to defend were not present. Id. at 2. However, ASIC's argument fails to appreciate that the insurer in Ross had defended under a full reservation of rights in the lower court, and it was only allowed to intervene on appeal because it since had elected to defend under a limited reservation of rights, accepting coverage for its insured's negligent conduct. Ross, 456 F.3d at 443-44. Because the insurer at that point was defending under a limited reservation of rights and had accepted coverage for the negligent conduct, the Fifth Circuit held that it had a direct interest in the liability lawsuit at the appeal level. Id. at 444. AISC is defending under a full reservation of rights and, according to Fifth Circuit precedent, does not have an interest sufficient to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a).

Furthermore, ASIC's Petition to Intervene is untimely. In the Fifth Circuit a court must consider the following factors when evaluating whether a motion to intervene was timely:

Stallworth v. Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1977). The complaint in this action was filed on November 7, 2014 [Docket 1], but ASIC did not file its Petition to Intervene until ten months later on August 5, 2015. Although the briefs make clear that the parties have been discussing coverage issues for an extended period, ASIC has offers no explanation for its failure to timely pursue what it now presents as a necessary remedy.

As to the second factor, the current discovery deadline is November 20, 2015. Allowing an additional party at this late stage of the litigation would certainly prejudice the plaintiff and defendants, who have been heavily involved in discovery since March, 2015. As to the third factor, ASIC claims it will be prejudiced because it will have to continue providing a defense until the separate declaratory judgment action is resolved, and none of the parties presently involved in the litigation represents its interest with regard to the defense costs. This argument could be made in every case that involves the provision of defense costs under full reservation of rights. The court is not persuaded that the "prejudice" to ASIC under these circumstances is any more than a common consequence of what is, in essence, a business decision.

Finally, there do not appear to be any unusual circumstances that apply to this case. This is a very typical case where an insurer has denied coverage, but has rested on its laurels until too late in the game to intervene. Because the factors weigh against intervention at this late stage of the litigation, the undersigned finds that the Petition to Intervene is untimely as to both an intervention of right and a permissive intervention. ASIC's Petition to Intervene is DENIED.