Wilson v. Seaboard Foods, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KASE R. WILSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 25-cv-02076-DDC-TJJ
)
SEABOARD FOODS, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on movant and proposed intervenor Zurich American
Insurance Company’s Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 56). The response time has passed and no
responses have been filed. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.
I. Background
Plaintiff Kase R. Wilson filed this negligence action seeking damages resulting from an
automobile accident. Plaintiff claims he was traveling northbound on K-25 highway in Finney
County, Kansas, when a semi-tractor trailer operated by a non-party and owned by Defendant
Seaboard Foods, LLC crossed the center line and struck the motor vehicle being operated by
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed suit on February 13, 2025, and a scheduling order was entered on May 27,
2025.1 An amended scheduling order was entered on November 19, 2025, extending the discovery
deadline to December 10, 2025, and setting the Pretrial Conference for December 16, 2025.2 These
are the current deadlines in the case and they remain unchanged.
1 Complaint, ECF No. 1; Scheduling Order, ECF No. 18.
2 Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. 55.
Case 2:25-cv-02076-DDC-TJJ Document 58 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 4

2
On November 21, 2025, movant and proposed intervenor Zurich American Insurance
Company (“Zurich”) filed its Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 56), seeking to intervene as a matter
of right and/or permissively. In its motion, Zurich states it is “the workers’ compensation carrier
for BH, Inc./The Foundation Group, Inc., the employer of Kase R. Wilson, the Plaintiff herein. By
reason of the worker’s compensation benefits paid to, or for the benefit of, the Plaintiff, Zurich is
subrogated herein to the extent of such worker’s compensation benefits paid.”3 The motion does
not state the amount of worker’s compensation benefits that were paid to Plaintiff.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 allows two types of intervention—intervention as a
matter of right pursuant to Rule 24(a) and permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b). A
motion to intervene must “state the grounds for intervention and be accompanied by a pleading
that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.”4 To intervene as a matter of
right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 24(a)(2), the movant must establish: “(1) the application is timely;
(2) it claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3)
the interest may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded; and (4) the interest may not be
adequately represented by existing parties.”5 Historically, the Tenth Circuit has taken a liberal
approach to intervention and favors the granting of motions to intervene.6
Permissive intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), on the other hand, rests in the
discretion of the trial court. According to the Rule, the Court “may permit” intervention to anyone
who “is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or . . . has a claim or defense
3 Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 56, p. 1.
4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(c).
5 Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Jake's Fireworks, Inc., 335 F.R.D. 330, 332–33 (D. Kan. 2020) (quoting Kane
Cty. v. United States, 928 F.3d 877, 890 (10th Cir. 2019)).
6 W. Energy All. v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 1157, 1165 (10th Cir. 2017).
Case 2:25-cv-02076-DDC-TJJ Document 58 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 4

3
that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.”7 The Court, in exercising its
discretion, must determine whether “intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication
of the original parties’ rights.”8
III. Analysis
Plaintiff was employed by BH, Inc./The Foundation Group, Inc. at the time of the accident,
and its insurer, Zurich, paid workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Plaintiff.
Therefore, Zurich has an interest in the damages sought by Plaintiff from Defendant arising from
the accident. As a non-party, Zurich’s ability to protect its interest would be impaired or impeded
by its absence from the litigation. Moreover, this District has consistently held a worker’s
compensation insurer has a right to intervene to protect its lien.9 Therefore, the Court finds all
elements required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) are met for intervention as a matter of right.
Because the Court finds Zurich has met all of the elements required to intervene as a matter of
right, it will not address whether permissive intervention is appropriate.
Additionally, the Court finds because Zurich’s interests are adverse to Plaintiff—as it seeks
to recoup the previously paid worker’s compensation payments from any award Plaintiff may
receive—its interests are aligned with Defendant for jurisdictional purposes.10 Because
jurisdiction in this matter relies upon diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the Court
must ensure such jurisdiction is not destroyed by intervention. Zurich’s pleading indicates it is a
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b).
8 Id.
9 Beckham v. Monarch Cement Co., No. 23-1235-DDC-BGS, 2024 WL 4381213, at *2 (D. Kan. Oct. 2,
2024); Est. of Taylor by & through Castleberry v. Fanuc Am. Corp., No. 20-1361-KHV-GEB, 2021 WL
5758493, at *2 (D. Kan. Dec. 3, 2021); Roth v. Builder's Stone & Masonry, Inc., No. 19-2747-DDC-GEB,
2020 WL 7480399, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 18, 2020); Beach v. M & N Mod. Hydraulic Press Co., 428 F.
Supp. 956, 959 (D. Kan. 1977).
10 See Roth, No. 19-2747-DDC-GEB, at *2 (finding that intervenor should be aligned as a defendant
because any sum going to the intervenor would be taken from the plaintiffs’ recovery).
Case 2:25-cv-02076-DDC-TJJ Document 58 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 4

4
corporation organized in New York with its principal place of business in Illinois. Plaintiff is a
citizen of Texas, and Defendant Seaboard, LLC’s sole member is Seaboard Corporation, which is
a public company incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Oklahoma.
Complete diversity appears intact, but Zurich still must file a disclosure statement as required by
Rule. 7.1(a)(2) alongside the Complaint in Intervention.11
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Zurich American Insurance Company’s Motion to
Intervene (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED. Zurich American Insurance Company must file its
Complaint in Intervention attached to its Motion to Intervene by December 15, 2025.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zurich American Insurance Company must file its
Rule 7.1(a)(2) disclosure statement by December 15, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated December 10, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
11 “In an action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), a party or intervenor
must, unless the court orders otherwise, file a disclosure statement. The statement must name—and
identify the citizenship of—every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party or
intervenor: (A) when the action is filed in or removed to federal court, and (B) when any later event
occurs that could affect the court's jurisdiction under § 1332(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(2).
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02076-DDC-TJJ Document 58 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 4