Hartford Ins. Grp. ex rel. Chunli Chen v. Kamara, 199 A.3d 841

On Oct. 10, 2013, employee Chunli Chen was injured by a third‑party (Kamara/Thrifty) while working; her employer’s insurer (The Hartford) paid $59,424.71 in workers’ compensation benefits.
Chen did not sue, join, or assign her tort claims to the insurer.
With the statute of limitations nearing expiration, Hartford filed suit captioned “The Hartford Group on behalf of Chunli Chen,” asserting negligence claims and seeking recovery (including Chen’s full damages), verified by an insurer representative.
Tortfeasors filed preliminary objections: (1) Domtar Paper precludes an insurer from suing a third‑party in its own right when the employee is not a party; (2) the verification violated Pa.R.C.P. 1024(c) because it wasn’t signed by the employee or explained the verifier’s sources.
Trial court sustained objections and dismissed with prejudice; Superior Court reversed, finding the “on behalf of” caption and insurer verification sufficient. The Supreme Court granted review.
Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and reinstated dismissal, holding insurer cannot enforce Section 319 subrogation by suing third parties unless the employee assigns the claim or voluntarily joins as a plaintiff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Insurer)	Defendant's Argument (Tortfeasors)	Held
Whether a workers’ comp insurer may sue a third‑party tortfeasor "on behalf of" an injured employee who did not join or assign claims	Hartford: captioning the suit "on behalf of" Chen and asserting Chen’s full damages constitutes suing "in the name of" the employee, preserving employee claims and effecting Section 319 subrogation	Tortfeasors: Domtar Paper and long line of precedent hold the cause of action remains with the employee; insurer cannot litigate the claim alone without employee participation or assignment	Held: No. Absent assignment or the employee’s voluntary joinder, insurer may not enforce Section 319 by filing suit directly against the tortfeasor.
Whether verification by an insurer representative (not the employee) satisfied Pa.R.C.P. 1024(c)	Hartford: Rule permits verification on information and belief by a person with sufficient knowledge; insurer controls litigation when employee declines to sue	Tortfeasors: Verifier lacked first‑hand knowledge and failed to state source of information as required by the rule	Held: Court did not reach this issue on the merits because insurer failed to state a legally cognizable cause of action; trial court’s dismissal was reinstated.

Domtar Paper Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 113 A.3d 1230 (Pa. 2015) (reaffirmed that the cause of action against a third‑party under Section 319 remains in the injured employee and subrogation must be achieved through a single action in the employee’s name or joined by the employee)
Scalise v. F.M. Venzie & Co., 152 A. 90 (Pa. 1930) (early statement that the right of action remains with the injured employee; employer may appear as use‑plaintiff when employee sues)
Moltz v. Sherwood Bros., 176 A. 842 (Pa. Super. 1935) (insurer cannot file direct action against tortfeasor; subrogation must be worked out through action brought in injured employee’s name)
Whirley Indus., Inc. v. Segel, 462 A.2d 800 (Pa. Super. 1983) (action against third‑party must be brought by injured employee; insurer has no independent cause of action)
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Richmond Mach. Co., 455 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. 1983) (Section 319 does not create an independent cause of action for employer/insurer against a third party)
Frazier v. WCAB (Bayada Nurses), 52 A.3d 241 (Pa. 2012) (statements on subrogation as "stepping into the shoes" were treated as non‑authoritative dicta regarding direct suits when employee had not sued)