 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meier v. McCord8/8/2001
d at 141 (citing City of Lemmon, 293 NW2d at 437).
[ .] It is also important to note that McCord and his liability insurer appeared and negotiated a release with Meier. Thus, Western National had no knowledge it needed to answer a lawsuit because Meier failed to advise it that he had subsequently filed his lawsuit against McCord. In addition, although informal contacts occurred between Meier and Western National over several months, which we find constitute an appearance under SDCL 15-6-55(b), Meier failed to give the company the required notice of his intent to take default judgment. This failure is grounds to set aside the default judgment. National Sur. Corp., 86 SD 302, 311, 195 NW2d 134, 139 (SD 1972).
[ .] As to the meritorious defense factor, Western National points out that Meier showed little evidence of his damages. We agree. Meier had special damages totaling $1907.60 plus a wage loss claim totaling $1050. His personal affidavit is the only evidence the circuit court had before it when entering default judgment. Western National contends that besides the statement in Meier's affidavit stating he should be awarded $125,000 nothing else would indicate that Meier would be likely to obtain a substantial award. Again, we agree.
[ .] Under this factor, Western National need only make a prima facie showing of a meritorious defense. National Sur. Corp., 86 SD at 310, 195 NW2d at 138-39. Given the scant evidence of damages and the fact that the default judgment award is over sixty times Meier's medical expense, we find the company sustained the required prima facie showing. We are puzzled that the circuit court would enter such a substantial judgment on such limited evidence. We recognize that under SDCL 15-6-55(b) the circuit court may conduct hearings to determine the amount of damages or answer any other questions necessary before awarding a default judgment. Although the circuit court is not required to hold such hearings, a hearing to determine the amount of damages would have been advisable here considering the miniscule evidence of damages.
[ .] Reversed and remanded.
[ .] SABERS, AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP, and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.
|