Polaris Industries wants one judge to handle four lawsuits filed in Hennepin County by people who said they have been harmed by sudden vehicle fires in the company's all-terrain vehicles (ATV).
Polaris last month made the request in Hennepin County District Court for lawsuits filed between August 2017 and September 2018. The lawsuits accuse the ATV maker of product defects and negligence in regard to fires that injured 13 people in five states.
The company has recalled more than 400,000 vehicles in recent years because of defects causing the fires and other issues. In April, it settled a case with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission for a record $27.25 million in regard to the recall process.
The four Hennepin County lawsuits are in the hands of four different judges and involve sudden fires and injuries that allegedly occurred while plaintiffs drove various Polaris four-wheelers on trails in Utah, Nevada, Montana, West Virginia and New York.
The lawsuits all have different specifics. But they were filed by the same law firm — Salt Lake City-based Eisenberg Gilchrist & Cutt — and generally accuse the Medina-based manufacturer of knowingly selling defective vehicles and failing to warn customers and regulators in a timely manner that the vehicles were prone to fire hazards.
A Polaris spokeswoman on Wednesday declined to comment on the lawsuits or Polaris' consolidation request, citing the company's policy of not commenting about ongoing litigation.
But in court documents last month, Polaris denied the plaintiffs' allegations. In its request for one judge to hear the four cases, the company said discovery is underway in the lawsuits, and it does not make sense for multiple judges to study all the information and individually rule on overlapping legal issues that would apply to all the lawsuits.
"The overlap among the allegations show that plaintiffs' counsel view these actions as involving overlapping issues of fact," Polaris said in the documents. "Although the off-road vehicle models in each incident materially differ from each other, and each incident presents unique facts, plaintiffs … allege in each case similar factual allegations and essentially the same legal theories."