Property owners sued a construction company and others for defective construction on Sea Island. The contractor’s insurer later sought to intervene so that it could participate in discovery and propose a special verdict form addressing whether it owed coverage for the alleged damages. The trial court granted intervention over the owners’ objections. The Court of Appeals reversed. An intervenor must claim an interest in the subject matter that requires protection in the existing action, but the insurer had an independent remedy: it could bring a separate declaratory-judgment action to determine coverage after the underlying case. Because that independent remedy protected the insurer’s interests, intervention was unnecessary and would improperly insert the insurer into litigation between the owners and the alleged tortfeasors. The court emphasized that an intervenor takes the case as it finds it and cannot expand the issues. The published decision provides a concise limit on intervention by insurers whose coverage questions can be resolved in a separate action.