St. Paul Traveler's Ins. Co. v. Burt
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00914-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00914-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded; APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Insurance - Motion to dismiss - M.R.A.P. 8 - Right to subrogation - Section 71-3-71 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - INSURANCE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-03-2007 Appealed from: Calhoun County Circuit Court Judge: Andrew K. Howorth Disposition: INTERPLED FUNDS SPLIT BETWEEN THE CLAIMANT AND THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURER Case Number: C2004-165 |
|
| Note: | APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; REVERSED AND REMANDED: | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY |
M. REED MARTZ |
||
| Appellee: | SAMUEL "SAM" D. BURT AND KIMBERLY "KIM" M. BURT | JOHN P. FOX |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Insurance - Motion to dismiss - M.R.A.P. 8 - Right to subrogation - Section 71-3-71 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Samuel Burt was injured in an automobile accident that occurred while he was on the job. As a result, Burt collected benefits from his employer’s workers’ compensation insurer, St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company. Burt and his wife subsequently filed a negligence claim against his co-worker, James Easley, who was driving at the time of the accident, and the driver of the other vehicle, Roger Clements. Travelers intervened in the third-party lawsuit. The circuit court ordered that the settlement funds from the negligence action be divided equally between the Burts, their attorney, and Travelers. Travelers appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Motion to dismiss The Burts filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, because Travelers failed to post a supersedeas bond to stay the disbursement of funds. The Burts cite M.R.A.P. 8 which clearly requires that a bond be given in order to obtain a stay of execution of the money judgment. However, the rule does not, as the Burts seem to imply, require that a bond be posted in order to appeal the judgment. Travelers does not seek a stay of execution of the money judgment. It instead seeks the reversal of the circuit court’s order that determined how the funds were to be divided among the parties. Accordingly, the Burts’ motion to dismiss is not well taken. Issue 2: Right to subrogation Travelers argues that the court erred in awarding Burt an equal share of the settlement funds before Travelers had been fully reimbursed for the workers’ compensation payments made to Burt. Section 71-3-71 requires that the amount recovered from the third party shall be applied first to the reasonable costs of collection, then to discharge the legal liability of the insurer, and then to the injured employee if any funds remain. The language of the statute clearly mandates that the insurer must be reimbursed. Travelers paid Burt $27,729.21 in workers’ compensation benefits. The $25,000 settlement award from the Burts’ negligence suit against a third party should have been divided according to the statute: first, deduct a reasonable amount for the cost of collection, then reimburse Travelers up to the amount of its subrogation lien totaling $27,729.21. Because the amount of the lien is greater than the $25,000 settlement award, there should be no distribution of funds to the Burts. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
