Samuel Roblero v. Cox Pools of the Southeast, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/21/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2120214 Samuel Roblero v. Cox Pools o f the Southeast, Inc. Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-12-900208) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Samuel R o b l e r o of h i s employer, Pools"), appeals f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r Cox P o o l s on i t s s u b r o g a t i o n dismissing Roblero's workers' of the Southeast, claim and from Inc. ("Cox t h e judgment c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s t Cox 2120214 Pools. The motorist judgment settlement a work-related subrogation held that uninsured- p r o c e e d s t h a t R o b l e r o had been p a i d a f t e r motor-vehicle r i g h t s o f Cox The r e l e v a n t record specifically accident were subject Pools. f a c t s i n t h i s case are not i n d i s p u t e . indicates that on May 10, 2010, w h i l e working the l i n e and s c o p e o f h i s employment w i t h Cox P o o l s , was i n j u r e d i n a motor-vehicle recovering Cox P o o l s accident. paid h i m $20,608.83 for Roblero's medical accident, The within Roblero While Roblero was f r o m t h e i n j u r i e s he h a d s u f f e r e d i n t h e a c c i d e n t , i n temporary-total-disability w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s . The to the driver and also paid $47,038 at f a u l t i n the treatment. of the other that Cox P o o l s driver uninsured-motorist insurance ("Penn N a t i o n a l " ) , insured vehicle was was uninsured. Cox c a r r i e r , Penn N a t i o n a l Pools' Insurance the v e h i c l e i n which R o b l e r o had been r i d i n g a t t h e time o f t h e a c c i d e n t . R o b l e r o made a c l a i m for uninsured-motorist was settled uninsured b e n e f i t s w i t h Penn N a t i o n a l ; t h a t c l a i m f o r $30,000. coverage w i t h Cox Pools' policy limit Penn N a t i o n a l was $3 m i l l i o n . 2 for 2120214 On January 30, 2012, after motorist settlement, Roblero workers' compensation benefits complaint, Roblero obtaining filed a from the uninsured- complaint seeking Pools. In the Cox a l l e g e d t h a t , as a r e s u l t o f h i s work- r e l a t e d a c c i d e n t , he h a d s u s t a i n e d a p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t y t o his r i g h t shoulder 2012, Cox Pools a n d t o h i s body as a w h o l e . filed a motion for a On A p r i l 19, summary judgment, a s s e r t i n g s u b r o g a t i o n r i g h t s t o t h e $30,000 t h a t R o b l e r o h a d received from Penn National; Cox Pools asserted those s u b r o g a t i o n r i g h t s i n i t s answer a n d c o u n t e r c l a i m t o R o b l e r o ' s complaint asserting h i s workers' compensation claim. A h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n was c o n t i n u e d s e v e r a l t i m e s , a t l e a s t i n part because Roblero trial court determined should be provided speaks that little o r no E n g l i s h , a n d t h e a Spanish-speaking f o r him a t the h e a r i n g . interpreter The hearing u l t i m a t e l y was h e l d on O c t o b e r 26, 2012. On O c t o b e r 9, 2012, Cox P o o l s f i l e d an amended m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . that Roblero injury. was I n t h e amended m o t i o n , attempting to recover Cox P o o l s twice In a d d i t i o n t o subrogation r i g h t s , f o r t h e same Cox P o o l s a d e t e r m i n a t i o n f r o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t R o b l e r o was 3 argued sought estopped 2120214 from r e c o v e r i n g w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s f o r the same injuries Penn f o r which he had received a settlement from National. On October 29, 2012, after a hearing, the trial court e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t , h o l d i n g t h a t t h e money R o b l e r o received from r i g h t s o f Cox had Penn N a t i o n a l was Pools. The already recovered that, in settling given up the the Cox § was Pools 25-5-1 court to the " t o be Therefore, Roblero injuries and claim, Roblero uninsured-motorist opportunity subrogation court also held that once f o r h i s w o r k - r e l a t e d l i m i t s o f $3,000,000." Roblero trial subject had made w h o l e up to the policy the t r i a l c o u r t determined, e s t o p p e d f r o m s e e k i n g an a d d i t i o n a l r e c o v e r y through the W o r k e r s ' Compensation Act et seq., dismissed prejudice. Ala. Roblero's Roblero G e n e r a l l y , we Code 1975. ("the Accordingly, from Act"), the trial w o r k e r s ' compensation a c t i o n with appealed. review v. Westhampton C o u r t , a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. L.L.C., 903 Furthermore, the issues questions of law, f o r which our Superior, LLC v. had So. Roblero Jefferson raises review Cnty. 4 2d 82, on i s de Dep't of 87 Turner ( A l a . 2004). appeal involve novo. Revenue, Cocina [Ms. 2120214 2110807, M a r c h 15, 2 0 1 3 ] ___ So. 3d ___ , ___ 2013) (citing Espinoza ( A l a . C i v . App. v . R u d o l p h , 46 So. 3d 403, 412 ( A l a . 2010)). Roblero contends t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by d i s m i s s i n g his workers' compensation claim without first determining w h e t h e r he was e n t i t l e d t o p e r m a n e n t - d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s as a result such the of h i s work-related benefits, injury a n d , i f he i s e n t i t l e d t o w h e t h e r t h e amount o f t h o s e b e n e f i t s exceeds amount o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d s he r e c e i v e d f r o m Penn National. I n i t s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , Cox P o o l s a p p e a r s t o a s s e r t that this c o u r t cannot c o n s i d e r t h e i s s u e whether t h e t r i a l court improperly dismissed Roblero's c l a i m because, i t says, Roblero the t r i a l hearings" court. on workers' never presented compensation the issue to Cox P o o l s s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e were " m u l t i p l e i t s motion for a summary judgment R o b l e r o " h a d e v e r y o p p o r t u n i t y " t o make a n d d e v e l o p other than whether uninsured-motorist the settlement proceeds and that arguments relating c l a i m were s u b j e c t t o s u b r o g a t i o n , toh i s which, a c c o r d i n g t o Cox P o o l s , was t h e o n l y a r g u m e n t he made t o t h e trial court i n o p p o s i t i o n t o i t s motion. 5 2120214 Roblero filed a postjudgment motion in which he c h a l l e n g e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e d i s m i s s a l of h i s workers' untimely c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m ; h o w e v e r , t h a t m o t i o n was filed. Nonetheless, we note that in i t s initial m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e o n l y i s s u e Cox P o o l s was w h e t h e r i t h a d a r i g h t motorist Roblero settlement should of subrogation proceeds. be I t made precluded from raised to the uninsuredno assertion bringing the that workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m a l t o g e t h e r ; t h u s , t h e r e was no r e a s o n f o r Roblero to argue against the dismissal of his workers' compensation c l a i m . N o t u n t i l O c t o b e r 9, 2012, when i t f i l e d its for a amended motion assert that Roblero [his] injuries summary judgment, s h o u l d be " e s t o p p e d [through Cox d i d Cox Pools from r e c o v e r i n g f o r Pools' uninsured-motorist c o v e r a g e ] w i t h Penn N a t i o n a l and t h e n a t t e m p t i n g t o o b t a i n an a d d i t i o n a l remedy f o r t h e same i n j u r i e s f r o m Cox P o o l s , s i n c e [the did A c t ] does n o t a l l o w d o u b l e not e x p l i c i t l y compensation assertion, claim. seek recovery." Cox P o o l s a d i s m i s s a l of Roblero's Moreover, contrary to Cox still workers' Pools' t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e o n l y h e a r i n g on t h e 6 2120214 m e r i t s o f t h e m o t i o n s f o r a summary judgment was t h e O c t o b e r 26, 2012, h e a r i n g . Even t h o u g h R o b l e r o ' s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was u n t i m e l y , o u r de novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w r e q u i r e s us d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r , as a matter of law, the t r i a l court properly Roblero's workers' compensation c l a i m . Cox Pools' Roblero's contention challenge compensation In action a workers' after to this the T h e r e f o r e , we court dismissal reject cannot consider his workers' of claim. discussing between that dismissed whether an employee compensation suffering i s required action a work-related and a injury, to elect third-party o u r supreme c o u r t has n o t e d : "In 1947, the Legislature removed the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e i n j u r e d employee e l e c t b e t w e e n a common-law a c t i o n a g a i n s t an a l l e g e d l y n e g l i g e n t t h i r d p a r t y and compensation a v a i l a b l e from h i s e m p l o y e r u n d e r t h e A l a b a m a Workmen's C o m p e n s a t i o n Act. A c t 635, A c t s o f A l a b a m a 1947. The t h i r d p a r t y was d e f i n e d as a ' p a r t y o t h e r t h a n t h e employer.'" Reed v. B r u n s o n , 527 So. 2d 102, 108 ( A l a . 1988) . What i s now commonly c a l l e d t h e " t h i r d - p a r t y s t a t u t e " was f i r s t at Title 26, § 312, Code o f A l a b a m a 7 1940. codified As J u d g e Terry 2120214 Moore has p o i n t e d o u t i n h i s t r e a t i s e on w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n law, " [ t ] h e s t a t u t e has r e m a i n e d i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h [ e ] same f o r m e v e r s i n c e . I t a l l o w s an e m p l o y e e , or h i s or her dependents i n case of death, t o b r i n g simultaneous or s u c c e s s i v e a c t i o n s f o r the workr e l a t e d i n j u r y o r d e a t h , one f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n and t h e o t h e r f o r c i v i l damages u n d e r t h e t h i r d - p a r t y statute." 2 Terry A. Moore, (1998)(footnotes The Alabama Workers' Compensation § 21:56 omitted). t h i r d - p a r t y s t a t u t e now reads, i n p e r t i n e n t part: " I f the i n j u r y or death f o r which compensation i s p a y a b l e under A r t i c l e s 3 or 4 of t h i s c h a p t e r [ i . e , the A c t ] was caused under circumstances also c r e a t i n g a l e g a l l i a b i l i t y f o r damages on t h e p a r t o f any p a r t y o t h e r t h a n t h e e m p l o y e r , w h e t h e r o r n o t the p a r t y i s s u b j e c t t o t h i s c h a p t e r , the employee, o r h i s o r h e r d e p e n d e n t s i n c a s e o f d e a t h , may proceed a g a i n s t the employer t o r e c o v e r compensation u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r o r may a g r e e w i t h t h e e m p l o y e r upon t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n p a y a b l e u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r , and a t t h e same t i m e , may b r i n g an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r p a r t y t o r e c o v e r damages f o r t h e i n j u r y o r d e a t h , and t h e amount o f t h e damages s h a l l be a s c e r t a i n e d and d e t e r m i n e d w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h i s chapter." § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975 (emphasis I n B a g g e t t v. Webb, 46 A l a . App. 275, 282 added). 666, 674, 248 So. ( C i v . 1 9 7 1 ) , t h i s c o u r t w r o t e o f T i t l e 26, § 312, c o d i f i e d at § 12-5-11(a): 8 2d now 2120214 " I t i s not intended t h a t s u i t or settlement a g a i n s t the employer must p r e c e d e or c o i n c i d e w i t h a t h i r d - p a r t y a c t i o n . I t i s m e r e l y made c l e a r t h a t i t i s p e r m i s s i b l e and p r o p e r f o r an employee o r h i s d e p e n d e n t s t o p u r s u e two r i g h t s o f a c t i o n a t t h e same t i m e . An e l e c t i o n t o p u r s u e one and n o t t h e o t h e r , o r one p r i o r t o t h e o t h e r , i s o f i t s e l f , no defense to the a c t i o n brought." I n h i s t r e a t i s e on w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w , J u d g e Moore explained that, " [ s ] i n c e B a g g e t t , t h e t h i r d - p a r t y s t a t u t e has b e e n c o n s i s t e n t l y r e a d t o a u t h o r i z e an employee w i t h a w o r k - r e l a t e d i n j u r y or o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e , or h i s o r h e r d e p e n d e n t s i n c a s e o f d e a t h , t o b r i n g an a c t i o n f o r damages f o r t h e i n j u r i e s , i n a d d i t i o n t o any r e c o v e r y a v a i l a b l e u n d e r t h e [ A c t ] . In the normal c a s e , the employee, o r dependents, r e c o v e r [ s ] c o m p e n s a t i o n f i r s t and t h e n p r o c e e d s a g a i n s t t h e t h i r d p a r t y , but the t h i r d p a r t y statute also e n v i s i o n s t h e r e v e r s e s c e n a r i o , where t h e employee o r d e p e n d e n t s f i r s t p u r s u e t h e t h i r d p a r t y and t h e n i n s t i t u t e a workers' compensation a c t i o n . In e i t h e r case, the employer remains e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i t i t s c o m p e n s a t i o n l i a b i l i t y by t h e amount o f t h e t h i r d p a r t y recovery i n accordance w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of the s t a t u t e . " 2 Moore, Alabama Workers' Compensation § 21:56 (footnotes omitted). Under the A c t , then, there i s no p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t an employee's b r i n g i n g s i m u l t a n e o u s or s u c c e s s i v e a c t i o n s a g a i n s t an e m p l o y e r f o r w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s and a g a i n s t t h i r d p a r t y f o r damages. a In f a c t , " [ t ] h e only p r o h i b i t i o n [ i n 9 2120214 the Act is] against retaining double recovery by requiring c r e d i t a g a i n s t sums owed by t h e e m p l o y e r o r r e i m b u r s e m e n t t o t h e e m p l o y e r f r o m damages r e c o v e r e d . " at 673, 248 So. subrogation 2d a t 281. in this The case Baggett, i s s u e o f Cox workers' i s d i s c u s s e d below. c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m was s a y s , t h e A c t does n o t a l l o w f o r d o u b l e admits that, " [ i ] n Alabama, an d i s m i s s a l of because, i t recovery. does Cox not p r o v i d e n o t i c e of a T h i r d P a r t y A c t i o n or s e t t l e m e n t n o r does t h e e m p l o y e e have t o o b t a i n c o n s e n t prior to the settlement Cox Pools says, the t r i a l to "exercise" estoppel to Nonetheless, proper employee App. Pools' right u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , Cox P o o l s c o n t e n d s , Roblero's 46 Ala. Pools have to thereof from the employer of a T h i r d P a r t y A c t i o n . " However, c o u r t had t h e " e q u i t a b l e a u t h o r i t y " to protect Cox Pools' subrogation rights. Cox Pools "equitable authority Roblero his cited no cases a u t h o r i t y , " and a l l o w i n g the g r a n t i n g the our trial research court from p u r s u i n g h i s workers' to trial has court revealed "equitably" such no prevent compensation c l a i m d e s p i t e s e t t l e m e n t w i t h Penn N a t i o n a l . As Cox P o o l s a c k n o w l e d g e s , Roblero had a legal right to settle 10 his uninsured-motorist 2120214 claim without Alabama law, workers' notifying Roblero was Pools a l s o had compensation motorist claim. Cox claim of the a legal settlement. right s e p a r a t e l y from Under to pursue his his uninsured- Thus, u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , Cox Pools n o t e n t i t l e d , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , t o a j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g Roblero's On erred workers' appeal, compensation c l a i m . Roblero i n determining proceeds were I n s t e a d , he does n o t t h a t the subject to argue t h a t the uninsured-motorist Cox a s s e r t s , the t r i a l Pools' trial court settlement subrogation rights. c o u r t "improperly grouped the ' c r e d i t ' which § 25-5-11(a) p r o v i d e s f o r compensation b e n e f i t s w i t h the In 11, 'subrogation' allowed against medical expenses." t h e t h i r d - p a r t y s t a t u t e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e A c t , § 25-5¬ the legislature has set forth the manner i n which an e m p l o y e r i s t o r e c e i v e c r e d i t f o r t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n i t has p a i d to an employee third party. when The the employee s t a t u t e reads, r e c e i v e s proceeds from in pertinent part: " I f the i n j u r e d employee, or i n case of death, h i s o r h e r d e p e n d e n t s , r e c o v e r s damages a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r p a r t y , t h e amount o f t h e damages r e c o v e r e d and c o l l e c t e d s h a l l be c r e d i t e d upon t h e l i a b i l i t y o f the employer f o r compensation. I f the damages recovered and collected are i n excess of the compensation payable under t h i s chapter, t h e r e s h a l l be no f u r t h e r l i a b i l i t y on t h e e m p l o y e r t o pay 11 a 2120214 c o m p e n s a t i o n on a c c o u n t o f t h e i n j u r y o r d e a t h . To t h e e x t e n t o f t h e r e c o v e r y o f damages a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r p a r t y , t h e e m p l o y e r s h a l l be e n t i t l e d to reimbursement f o r the amount of compensation t h e r e t o f o r e p a i d on a c c o u n t o f i n j u r y o r d e a t h . I f t h e employee who r e c o v e r s damages i s r e c e i v i n g o r e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e compensation f o r permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y , t h e n t h e e m p l o y e r s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o reimbursement f o r the amount of compensation t h e r e t o f o r e p a i d , and t h e e m p l o y e r ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay further compensation f o r permanent total d i s a b i l i t y s h a l l be s u s p e n d e d f o r t h e number o f weeks w h i c h e q u a l s t h e q u o t i e n t o f t h e t o t a l damage r e c o v e r y , l e s s t h e amount o f any r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n a l r e a d y p a i d , d i v i d e d by t h e amount o f the w e e k l y b e n e f i t f o r permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y w h i c h t h e employee was r e c e i v i n g o r t o w h i c h t h e employee was entitled. For purposes of this a m e n d a t o r y a c t , t h e e m p l o y e r s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o s u b r o g a t i o n f o r m e d i c a l and v o c a t i o n a l benefits e x p e n d e d by t h e e m p l o y e r on b e h a l f o f t h e e m p l o y e e ; however, i f a j u d g m e n t i n an a c t i o n b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t to this section i s uncollectible i n part, the employer's entitlement t o s u b r o g a t i o n f o r such medical and vocational benefits shall be in p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e r a t i o t h e amount o f t h e j u d g m e n t collected bears to the total amount of the judgment." § 25-5-11(a). In this Roblero's c a s e , Cox medical P o o l s has a l r e a d y p a i d $47,038 t o w a r d expenses. uninsured-motorist benefits Roblero received f r o m Penn N a t i o n a l . $30,000 Because in the amount Cox P o o l s has e x p e n d e d on m e d i c a l b e n e f i t s on b e h a l f o f R o b l e r o a l r e a d y exceeds the t o t a l a result of h i s t h i r d - p a r t y amount R o b l e r o r e c e i v e d claim, 12 Cox Pools i s e n t i t l e d as to 2120214 subrogation trial of the entire court ordered. See amount o f those proceeds, as the § 25-5-11 ( a ) . Roblero contends t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g his workers' compensation P o o l s t o pay i t s share claim without first ordering of the a t t o r n e y fee Roblero Cox incurred i n o b t a i n i n g t h e u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t s e t t l e m e n t , as a u t h o r i z e d by § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( e ) . the trial first 1214 R o b l e r o d i d n o t a s s e r t t h a t argument b e f o r e court, however; thus, time on appeal. ( A l a . 1992) were b e f o r e the have ("Our been first trial i t c a n n o t be Norman v. review is limited court an presented Bozeman, to 605 So. to the issue raised and raised ruled 2d 1210, issues that on on f o r the appeal must the trial by court."). We note t h a t , i n h i s response summary j u d g m e n t , entitled Roblero t o Cox asserted t o a summary j u d g m e n t on Pools' motion f o r a that the Cox Pools i s s u e of was not subrogation b e c a u s e , he s a i d , " t h e s u b r o g a t i o n and c r e d i t p r o v i s i o n s o f § 25-5-11 [ w h i c h s e t f o r t h the circumstances pursuant to which an e m p l o y e r i s e n t i t l e d t o c r e d i t i t s c o m p e n s a t i o n liability by apply the amount o f the third-party r e c o v e r y ] do not to proceeds p a i d out under the u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t p r o v i s i o n s of 13 2120214 an insurance policy." Conditioning, Inc., Roblero 688 So. cited 2d 827, 1996), i n support of h i s a s s e r t i o n . that argument waived. See to this court B u n k l e y v. on 830-32 Bunkley A i r (Ala. Civ. R o b l e r o has n o t appeal; B o s h e l l v. K e i t h , 418 So. presented therefore, 2d 89, 92 App. i t (Ala. is 1982) ("When an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o a r g u e an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , that issue i s waived."). In i t s appellate brief, trial court had erred court to In Bunkley, t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t overrule Bunkley, supra. Cox Pools the in crediting the asks this amount o f uninsured- m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s t h e e m p l o y e e had r e c e i v e d a g a i n s t t h e future w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s owed t o t h a t e m p l o y e e b e c a u s e the u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t with the b e n e f i t s were d e r i v e d employer's uninsured-motorist t h i r d - p a r t y wrongdoer. court in this case disagreed with the B u n k l e y , 688 agreed with holding Cox So. from a carrier and i n B u n k l e y and National. ruling, of the Because i t cannot money Cox seek Roblero Pools to did have 14 received not receive from trial that r e f u s i n g to had Bunkley The stating t h a t h o l d i n g when i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Cox P o o l s was subrogation not 2d a t 830. Pools, contract i t apply entitled from an overruled to Penn adverse by this 2120214 court. Holloway v. 1986) . Moreover, Robertson, we note 500 that, So. 2d 1056, i n deciding 1059 (Ala. Bunkley, this c o u r t a p p l i e d o u r supreme c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n S t a t e Farm M u t u a l Automobile 619 I n s u r a n c e Co. (1971). This v. Cahoon, 287 A l a . 462, c o u r t and t h e t r i a l d e c i s i o n s o f o u r supreme c o u r t . 2d 146, 1975. 158 We ( A l a . C i v . App. are decisions. App. to at liberty overrule Thus, t h i s T e n E y c k v. T e n E y c k , 885 So. to § 12-3-16, A l a . Code overrule 655 So. 2d or modify 1058 reasons and (Ala. Civ. c o u r t d e c l i n e s Cox P o o l s ' set the cause consistent with invitation forth above, that portion that this of i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s opinion. That p o r t i o n o f the judgment the u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t settlement proceeds affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND Pittman, the claim i s R o b l e r o r e c e i v e d were s u b j e c t t o Cox P o o l s ' s u b r o g a t i o n is those Bunkley. the determining 2d the judgment d i s m i s s i n g R o b l e r o ' s workers' compensation reversed, So. c o u r t a r e b o u n d by 2 0 0 3 ) ; and Thompson v. W a s d i n , 1995). For not 252 Thomas, and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 15 REMANDED. with writing. rights 2120214 MOORE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n the I concur i n the The Inc. record result. result. indicates that Cox Pools of the Southeast, ("the e m p l o y e r " ) , f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on A p r i l 2012. 19, 2012, and amended t h a t In support of those motions, motion on October the employer presented e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Samuel R o b l e r o ("the e m p l o y e e " ) r e c e i v e d compensable f r o m a May motor-vehicle which the injuries accident employee resulting involving had received 9, 10, had 2010, an u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t , for temporary-total-disability b e n e f i t s and m e d i c a l p a y m e n t s f r o m t h e e m p l o y e r . further presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g that The employer the employee was c o v e r e d by t h e u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t p r o v i s i o n s o f an i n s u r a n c e policy issued p r o c u r e d by The by Penn the employer employer proved National with that the Insurance policy that limits employee of had had been $3,000,000. settled his u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t c l a i m a g a i n s t Penn N a t i o n a l f o r $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 . B a s e d on t h o s e f a c t s , t h e e m p l o y e r a r g u e d i n i t s o r i g i n a l m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t t h a t , u n d e r § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, a part of the Alabama Workers' Compensation ("the A c t " ) , § 25-5-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, i t was 16 Act entitled 2120214 to a "subrogation" liability credit a g a i n s t i t s workers' f o r t h e money t h e National. e m p l o y e e had I n i t s amended m o t i o n , benefits r e c e i v e d from allowed to recover because Penn the employer f u r t h e r argued t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e s h o u l d n o t be compensation compensation he had received workers' uninsured- m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s f r o m Penn N a t i o n a l , i t s u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t insurance carrier, compensation which, 19, The employer's the amount 2012, employee argument r e c o v e r i n g workers' of any award to a of double workers' recovery, i s p r o h i b i t e d by § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 , A l a . Code October motions. thus, b e n e f i t s would i t said, On and, the did that employee not he responded be to the address specifically should 1975. the prevented from c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s b a s e d on h i s r e c e i p t uninsured-motorist settlement proceeds. He did, h o w e v e r , m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r d i d n o t have t h e r i g h t a "subrogation" credit against i t s workers' compensation l i a b i l i t y f o r t h e amount o f t h e u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t proceeds, 688 So. The citing 2d 827 Bunkley v. Bunkley ( A l a . C i v . App. Mobile summary j u d g m e n t Circuit Court f o r the settlement A i r Conditioning, Inc., 1996). ("the employer 17 to trial on court") October 29, entered 2012. a In 2120214 t h a t judgment, the t r i a l court found t h a t the employer was e n t i t l e d t o " s u b r o g a t i o n r i g h t s " as t o t h e u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t benefits paid t o t h e employee court f u r t h e r found t h a t the by Penn N a t i o n a l . The trial employee " h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be made w h o l e up t o the p o l i c y l i m i t s o f $3,000,000. [The employee] a c c e p t e d $30,000 from the [Penn National] policy as satisfaction f o r h i s compensatory and punitive damages. The Workers' Compensation Act i s not i n t e n d e d t o a l l o w f o r d o u b l e r e c o v e r y f r o m t h e same i n j u r y by an e m p l o y e e . [The employee] i s e s t o p p e d from obtaining benefits f o r compensatory and p u n i t i v e damages f r o m t h e u n i n s u r e d m o t o r i s t p o l i c y s p o n s o r e d by [ t h e e m p l o y e r ] and now s e e k i n g an a d d i t i o n a l r e c o v e r y from [the employer] through the Workers' Compensation A c t . " The t r i a l to court f u r t h e r ordered the c l e r k of the t r i a l court d i s m i s s t h e c a s e w i t h p r e j u d i c e on O c t o b e r 29, 2012. employee f i l e d a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on December 7, 2 0 1 2 , a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on December 10, The and 1 2012. B a s e d on o u r de novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , see S a r t i n Madden, 955 So. 2d 1024 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006), we v. must a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e e m p l o y e r p r o v e d t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e e m p l o y e e had 30 d a y s f r o m t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t i n w h i c h t o f i l e h i s postjudgment motion. The employee f i l e d h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n 39 d a y s a f t e r e n t r y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t ; t h u s , h i s p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n came t o o l a t e and c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . 1 18 2120214 a d i s m i s s a l of the employee's w o r k e r s ' compensation c l a i m a matter of In its law. amended motion for a summary e m p l o y e r a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e c l a i m s h o u l d be judgment, dismissed t h e e m p l o y e e had a l r e a d y r e c o v e r e d u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t t h r o u g h a s e t t l e m e n t w i t h Penn N a t i o n a l . t h a t § 25-5-11 i s i n t e n d e d Nuss Lumber Co. Civ. App. ("The i s to § 25-5-11 primary a i d the double r e c o v e r y . " ) . behind to prevent The goal r e c e i v i n g monetary d i f f e r e n t sources, The a matter thereby because benefits employer argued double recovery. 3d 90, i n j u r e d employee, not the trial benefits See 93 to (Ala. allow employer contended t h a t the required the of w o r k e r s ' compensation w o r k e r s ' compensation c l a i m i n order from The v. E s t a t e o f Monghan, 91 So. 2012) legislation as court to to prevent for his s e c u r i n g a double policy dismiss the injury a the employee from two recovery. e m p l o y e r d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h i t s r i g h t t o a j u d g m e n t as of law. Section 25-5-11 does not prohibit an e m p l o y e e f r o m r e c o v e r i n g m o n e t a r y b e n e f i t s f o r t h e same i n j u r y from two or more different sources. In fact, the plain language of § 25-5-11(a) s p e c i f i c a l l y a f f o r d s t o employees the right to recover from t h i r d p a r t i e s any 19 and a l l amounts to 2120214 which they are legally entitled while the workers' employers. Thus, t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e b e n e f i t s i n no benefits same recovering uninsured-motorist compensation "at way prevents from m a i n t a i n i n g a c l a i m f o r w o r k e r s ' as the employer contended in from their recovered the compensation i t s amended time" employee benefits, summary-judgment motion. In i t s judgment, employee should be the trial estopped to court concluded claim workers' that the compensation b e n e f i t s b a s e d on h i s r e c o v e r y o f u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s . On appeal, the employer m a i n t a i n s t h a t i t w o u l d be u n f a i r to a l l o w the employee t o s e t t l e h i s c l a i m f o r u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s , w i t h o u t n o t i c e t o t h e e m p l o y e r , f o r $30,000, w h i c h equals 1% o f t h e u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t - i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y limits, thereby i m p a i r i n g i t s r i g h t to a v o i d the c o s t s of the injury. The used e m p l o y e r a s s e r t s t h a t we by Although the trial there may court be s h o u l d adopt the e s t o p p e l in order some merit to avoid in the theory that inequity. contention that e m p l o y e r s s h o u l d be n o t i f i e d and a l l o w e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n , o r consent to, third-party settlements, A l a b a m a W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n § 21:87 20 see 2 T e r r y A. Moore, ( 1 9 9 8 ) , t h e A c t does n o t 2120214 contain any p r o v i s i o n to that liberty to j u d i c i a l l y engraft Shelby Cnty. Health particularly a n d we are not at one, s e e g e n e r a l l y Care A u t h . , a provision effect, that Ex parte 850 So. 2d 332 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , would require workers' compensation b e n e f i t s i n those forfeiture circumstances. Even i f we c o u l d a p p l y an e q u i t a b l e - e s t o p p e l t h e o r y , case does enforce n o t come t o t h i s that defense court against of i n the proper t h e employee. posture this to I n i t s amended summary-judgment m o t i o n , t h e e m p l o y e r d i d n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e s h o u l d be e s t o p p e d t o r e c o v e r workers' b e n e f i t s b a s e d on h i s d e c i s i o n t o a c c e p t policy limits of the uninsured-motorist notifying the employer. regarding the accident, the v e h i c l e was a p p a r e n t l y other presented the the less compensation than the f u l l policy The e m p l o y e r p r e s e n t e d contending only without no e v i d e n c e that "the driver of at f a u l t . " The e m p l o y e r no e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e amount o f settlement. trial opportunity $3,000,000." The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s n o t h i n g court's finding t o be made that whole The e m p l o y e r up the to substantiate employee to the p o l i c y further presented "had an limits of no evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t was n o t n o t i f i e d o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t 21 before 2120214 it was consummated, participate i n that compensation impaired. not that settlement, credit The i t and was denied or that subrogation any any of rights right i t s workers' were thereby employer m e r e l y argued t h a t the employee recover workers' compensation to benefits could because e m p l o y e e had already recovered uninsured-motorist which i s not legally the correct. Although respond i t i s true to the that the employer's benefits, employee d i d not argument that the directly workers' c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d b a s e d on t h e e m p l o y e e ' s r e c e i p t of u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t require affirmance. A b e n e f i t s , t h a t f a i l u r e does motion for a summary not judgment is p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d when no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a m a t t e r law. R u l e 56, A l a . R. facie showing burden shifts evidence' to creating p a r t e A l f a Mut. ( c i t i n g B a s s v. 794, that 797-98 Gen. C i v . P. those the a two "When t h e movant makes a p r i m a conditions nonmovant genuine I n s . Co., to issue 742 So. are satisfied, present of material 2d 182, 184 (emphasis added). 22 The the 'substantial fact." (Ala. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C n t y . , 538 ( A l a . 1989)) of Ex 1999) So. employer 2d may 2120214 have e s t a b l i s h e d c e r t a i n f a c t s t h a t were u n d i s p u t e d , employer never e s t a b l i s h e d a prima as a matter of law based on but the f a c i e r i g h t t o a judgment those facts; thus, the burden never s h i f t e d t o the employee t o r e b u t the employer's showing. T h e r e f o r e , t h i s c o u r t may r e v e r s e t h e summary j u d g m e n t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t d i s m i s s e s the employee's workers' compensation claim. On the other hand, this judgment i n r e g a r d t o t h e c o u r t must a f f i r m trial summary court's conclusion that e m p l o y e r ' s § 25-5-11 s u b r o g a t i o n and credit the u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t s e t t l e m e n t proceeds. has the rights apply the to Our supreme c o u r t g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t an e m p l o y e r c a n n o t c r e d i t uninsured- m o t o r i s t b e n e f i t s a g a i n s t i t s workers' compensation liability, see S t a t e Farm Mut. Ala. 252 So. 2d 619 g e n e r a l r u l e may Auto. (1971), not I n s . Co. but apply v. some d i c t a So. 2d 440, recovery automobile of 442 indicates that t o t h e p r o c e e d s o f an m o t o r i s t p o l i c y f u n d e d by t h e e m p l o y e r . 876 Cahoon, 287 liability insurer W a t t s v. S e n t r y I n s . , b e n e f i t s from would the uninsured- ( A l a . 2003) ( n o t i n g , i n an a s i d e , t h a t uninsured-motorist 462, be an any employer's "subject to the e m p l o y e r ' s r i g h t t o r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n p a i d on 23 2120214 account of the whether Cahoon employee's or Watts however, because the injury"). applies We in the e m p l o y e e does n o t need not present decide context, argue t h a t the trial c o u r t e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the employer's s u b r o g a t i o n credit rights proceeds. wrong, apply to the uninsured-motorist settlement Therefore, t h a t l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n , whether r i g h t i s now the law of the case. See Alabama Revenue v. N a t i o n a l P e a n u t F e s t i v a l A s s ' n , ( A l a . C i v . App. will and retain 2010). a double 51 So. As s u c h , any c o n c e r n recovery remand, t h e e m p l o y e r w i l l s h o u l d be Dep't 3d 353, or of 356 t h a t the employee allayed because, on be e n t i t l e d t o r e d u c e i t s w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n l i a b i l i t y by t h e amount o f t h e u n i n s u r e d - m o t o r i s t benefits, of the Code s u b j e c t , of course, employee's attorney's t o payment o f i t s f a i r p o r t i o n fees. 1975. 24 See § 25-5-11(e), Ala.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.