271 P.3d 1165
Haw.2012Background
- Toro, an employee, was injured on A & B Properties’ land; First Insurance paid his workers’ comp.
- First Insurance sued A & B for subrogation within Hawai‘i’s two-year statute, HRS § 657-7.
- Toro did not file his own suit within the limitations period; the parties settled, Toro did not consent.
- After the two-year term, Toro sought intervention in First Insurance’s timely action; circuit court granted.
- A & B moved for summary judgment arguing HRS § 386-8 limits intervention after § 657-7 expires.
- Supreme Court held HRS §§ 386-8 and 657-7 do not limit an employee’s intervention in a timely employer action and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 386-8 ambiguous regarding intervention after § 657-7 expires? | Toro: § 386-8 permits intervention without time limit when the employer’s action is timely. | A&B: § 386-8 is unambiguous and bars post-limit intervention by an employee. | § 386-8 read with § 657-7 is ambiguous; intervention allowed. |
| Did legislative history show § 386-8 intended to limit intervention rather than intervention rights? | Toro: history shows protection of employee recovery, not limiting intervention. | A&B: history supports no post-limit intervention by employee. | History supports employee intervention; not a restriction on intervention. |
| Does the statutory scheme imply liberal intervention rights in the workers’ compensation context? | Toro: framework encourages resolution in one action and protects employees’ interests. | A&B: employer’s rights suffice; employee intervention would expand damages too much. | Statutory framework supports liberal intervention by both parties prior to trial. |
| Should waiver or res judicata bar apply to Toro’s intervention post-limit? | Toro: waiver/res judicata preclude A&B’s defense; issues were not waived. | A&B: no appeal on these points; defenses not preserved. | Court did not reach these issues; they were not necessary to resolve the appeal. |
| What is the appellate disposition regarding the circuit court’s summary judgment? | Toro: trial court erred; intervention was proper and should proceed. | A&B: summary judgment correct; post-limit intervention barred. | Circuit court erred; judgment vacated and case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kepo’o v. Kane, 106 Hawai`i 270, 103 P.3d 939 (Haw. 2005) (intervention after limitations in other contexts)
- Shimabuku v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 79 Haw. 352, 903 P.2d 48 (Haw. 1995) (consent requirements under § 386-8 for settlements)
- Hun v. Center Prop., 63 Haw. 273, 626 P.2d 182 (Haw. 1981) (liberal construction of workers’ compensation laws)
- Evanson v. Univ. of Hawaii, 52 Haw. 595, 483 P.2d 187 (Haw. 1971) (liberal construction of compensation statutes)
- State v. Wheeler, 121 Hawai`i 383, 219 P.3d 1170 (Haw. 2009) (statutory interpretation framework)
- Shimabuku v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 79 Hawai`i 352, 903 P.2d 48 (Haw. 1995) (consent requirements under § 386-8 for settlements)
- Home Ins. Co. v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 196 Cal. App. 3d 522, 241 Cal. Rptr. 858 (Cal. App. Dist. 1987) (intervention rules in subrogation contexts (cited by others))