BENTON – State Auto Property and Casualty properly asserted privilege over portions of its files on a car crash, Senior U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert decided after inspecting the files in chambers.
On June 22, Gilbert found the information qualified for privilege as attorney client communication and as work product.
He rejected an argument from plaintiff Kenneth Grasle of St. Clair County that the information constituted business advice.
Attorney Gary Meadows of Hepler Broom in Edwardsville represents State Auto.
Attorneys Michelle Rich and Kristina Cooksey of Fairview Heights represent Grasle, who worked for Schulte Supply of Edwardsville.
In May 2018, Grasle and a driver without insurance collided in Monroe County.
In December 2018, he applied for workers’ compensation.
He filed a claim with American Arbitration Association in February 2019, for uninsured motorist coverage under Schulte Supply’s policy with State Auto.
State Auto retained Hepler Broom to oppose arbitration.
Last May, Grasle and Schulte Supply’s workers’ compensation carrier settled his claim for $85,531.25.
The agreement covered lumbar spine injuries and it discontinued medical expenses after 2020.
The state workers’ compensation commission approved the settlement.
State Auto sued Grasle in district court last September, seeking judgment that it didn’t have to cover his injuries.
Meadows claimed that the policy prohibited duplicate payments and that State Auto didn’t consent to the workers’ compensation settlement.
He claimed State Auto wouldn’t have consented because Grasle’s application for workers’ compensation alleged permanent neck injury.
He claimed the settlement exposed State Auto to liability for neck injury.
State Auto produced documents to Grasle with redactions and a dispute broke out.
Meadows asserted privilege in a conference with Gilbert in March, and Grasle’s lawyers asked Gilbert for an inspection in chambers.
Gilbert granted the request and ordered briefs.
Meadows claimed the redactions were mostly verbatim communications between State Auto and Hepler Broom, and Gilbert agreed.
He described the information as an internal State Auto document memorializing any information including conversations and emails.
He found a lawyer didn’t create it but that wasn’t fatal to a claim of protection.
He wrote that he couldn’t find the business advice of investigating and evaluating a claim to be the focus of the communications.
He found the focus was how to defend an adversarial claim.
He found State Auto and Hepler Broom clearly engaged to get legal information and understand legal strategy.
“There are many indications that Hepler Broom and State Auto intended those conversations to be confidential in light of discussions regarding strategy, depositions, and other matters,” he wrote.
He also protected notes State Auto made after telephone calls with Hepler Broom.
He found they contained summaries, impressions, advice, and other thoughts.
“Whether or not Grasle obtained consent is at issue, which does not put attorney client communications at issue,” he wrote.
“Grasle would likely be the best person to determine whether or not consent was given.”