11th Cir.

J.G. v. Northbrook Industries, Inc.

June 11, 2026 ·1:20-cv-05233-SEG ·Per Curiam · By Maria Santos

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal by an insurance company seeking to intervene in a civil trafficking lawsuit. The court held that the insurer waited too long to file its motion, rendering the request untimely under federal rules.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:43

Background

Plaintiff J.G. filed a civil action under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act against Northbrook Industries, Inc., d.b.a. United Inn and Suites, alleging sex trafficking occurred at a hotel in Georgia. Northfield Insurance Company, the insurer for the hotel, provided a defense under a reservation of rights in 2021 but did not move to intervene in the main lawsuit until December 2024. Northfield sought to submit special interrogatories at trial to clarify its indemnification obligations, but the district court denied the motion as untimely.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the timeliness of the motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twenty-four. It applied a four-factor test considering the length of delay, prejudice to existing parties, prejudice to the intervenor, and unusual circumstances. The court found Northfield knew of its interest as early as April 2021 but waited nearly four years to act. This delay prejudiced the plaintiff by introducing new coverage-focused issues after discovery closed and trial was set. The court concluded the motion was untimely and therefore dismissed the appeal.

What it means going forward

Insurance companies must monitor litigation involving their insureds closely and file motions to intervene promptly to avoid being barred by timeliness rules. A denial of an untimely motion to intervene is not a final decision, meaning such appeals will be dismissed without reaching the merits of the intervention right.