Lee v. Terex Corporation
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-04615
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lee v. Terex, Judge Illston granted Liberty Mutual’s unopposed motion to intervene to seek reimbursement for workers’ compensation benefits.
Liberty Mutual may join Lee’s lawsuit to protect its reimbursement interest. The order also affects Ozzie Lee, Terex Corporation, United Rentals, and Acco Engineered Systems, Inc., as parties or entities connected to the intervention request.
What happened
In Ozzie Lee v. Terex Corporation, et al., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company asked to join Lee’s negligence and products-liability lawsuit against Terex Corporation and United Rentals. Liberty said it had paid Lee workers’ compensation benefits after his workplace accident.
Liberty argued that it needed to participate because it had an interest in being reimbursed and that the existing parties would not adequately protect that interest. Lee, Terex, and United Rentals did not oppose the motion.
Judge Susan Illston found that Liberty met the requirements for intervention and granted its motion. Liberty was ordered to file its proposed complaint in the case.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Terex Corporation · No. 3:23-cv-04615
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 4, 2023
Background
Ozzie Lee brought a negligence and products-liability action against Terex Corporation and United Rentals. The complaint alleges that Terex manufactured the scissor lift involved in Lee’s July 27, 2022 workplace accident and that United Rentals rented the lift to Lee’s employer, Acco Engineered Systems, Inc.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company moved to intervene as a subrogee for Acco Engineered Systems. A subrogee is a party that seeks reimbursement after paying benefits or covering a loss. Liberty stated that it had paid workers’ compensation benefits to Lee for injuries from the accident and had an interest in being reimbursed. Lee, Terex, and United Rentals filed statements stating that they did not oppose the motion.
Court’s analysis
Liberty moved to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), or alternatively for permission to intervene under Rule 24(b)(2). Intervention allows a nonparty to join an existing lawsuit when the rule’s requirements are met.
For intervention as of right, the court applied four requirements: the motion must be timely; the proposed intervenor must have a legally protectable interest related to the lawsuit; the lawsuit’s outcome may impair the intervenor’s ability to protect that interest; and the existing parties must not adequately represent the intervenor’s interest.
The court found that Liberty satisfied all four requirements. Its motion was timely, its payment of workers’ compensation benefits gave it an interest in reimbursement, the lawsuit could affect its ability to protect that interest, and the other parties had different interests from Liberty.
Disposition
The court GRANTS Liberty’s motion to intervene. Liberty must file its proposed complaint in the case. The court vacated the hearing on Liberty’s motion; Lee’s separate motion to remand remained scheduled for December 15, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.