State Auto Insurance Companies v. Meyer, 011221 SDWC, 52, 2019/20

Case DateJanuary 12, 2021
CourtSouth Dakota
State Auto Insurance Companies
v.
Eric Meyer
HF No. 52, 2019/20
South Dakota Workers Compensation
South Dakota Department of Labor & Regulation Division of Labor and Management
January 12, 2021
          J. G. Shultz Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, PC           Seamus W. Culhane Turbak Law Office, PC          RE: HF No. 52, 2019/20 – State Auto Insurance Companies v. Eric Meyer          Greetings:          This letter will address Meyer’s Motion to Consolidate Actions. All responsive briefs have been considered. Aaron Hansen (Hansen) was the driver of a pickup truck involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 21, 2019. Eric Meyer (Meyer) was a passenger in the vehicle. State Auto Insurance Companies (Insurer) filed a Petition for Hearing alleging that Hansen was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.          Meyer and Hansen (jointly Claimants) have moved the Department of Labor & Regulation (Department) to consolidate hearing files numbered 52, 2019/20 and 53, 2019/20. The Claimants believe judicial economy is best served by consolidation of the two cases because both matters arise out of the same set of facts and involve the same parties and witnesses. The Claimants argue that both cases involve Insurer State Auto Insurance Companies and the injuries sustained by both Claimants in the February 21, 2019 motor vehicle collision. The Claimants further assert there are common questions and facts of law regarding the injuries, and there will be overlap in witnesses and legal issues in both cases. The Claimants argue consolidation would prevent the possibility of inconsistent discovery between the two cases.          Insurer argues that consolidation is not appropriate in this matter. Insurer alleges that there has been intent to influence Hansen’s testimony. Insurer states that when its counsel attended the deposition of Hansen, Meyer was sitting next to him. The deposition did not proceed, because Claimant’s attorney would not instruct Meyer to sequester himself from the deposition. Insurer believes this was an attempt to influence Hansen’s testimony. Insurer further argues that the discovery...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT