418 P.3d 997
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- Stephanie Jackson, a South Carolina resident, was a trainee truck driver riding as a student-passenger in February 2014 when an Eagle employee driver allegedly lost control and rolled the truck, seriously injuring Jackson.
- Jackson was employed by Drivers Management (Nebraska), which contracted with Eagle for training; Drivers Management is self-insured and paid workers' compensation benefits to Jackson in Nebraska.
- Jackson filed a third-party personal-injury suit in Arizona (Mohave County) within Arizona's two-year statute of limitations and named Drivers Management solely for subrogation/reimbursement purposes as required by Nebraska law.
- Eagle moved to dismiss/for summary judgment, arguing Arizona's workers' compensation provision A.R.S. § 23-1023(B) operated as a one-year time bar and Drivers Management was not a proper defendant under A.R.S. § 23-1022(A).
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Eagle, concluding Jackson’s claim was barred by § 23-1023(B) because she did not obtain a reassignment within one year; Jackson appealed.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals held Nebraska law governs subrogation/assignment rights because Jackson’s workers’ compensation claim was adjudicated and paid in Nebraska, and reversed the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 23-1023(B)’s one-year provision bars Jackson’s third-party suit | § 23-1023(B) inapplicable because Jackson sought and obtained Nebraska workers' comp; Nebraska law should govern subrogation | § 23-1023(B) applies regardless; Jackson was still entitled to Arizona benefits so the one-year rule bars her claim | Court: § 23-1023(B) should not apply; Nebraska law governs subrogation here, so summary judgment was erroneous |
| Whether Drivers Management was a proper defendant for subrogation purposes | Drivers Management was properly named to satisfy Nebraska subrogation requirements | Eagle argued it was not a proper Arizona defendant under A.R.S. § 23-1022(A) | Court: Naming Drivers Management satisfied Nebraska law; it is proper for subrogation purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Moretto v. Samaritan Health Sys., 190 Ariz. 343, 947 P.2d 917 (App. 1997) (A.R.S. § 23-1023(B) is part of a subrogation scheme, not a traditional statute of limitations)
- Oaks v. McQuiller, 191 Ariz. 333, 955 P.2d 971 (App. 1998) (time limit in § 23-1023(B) does not apply where employee did not seek workers' compensation benefits)
- Quiles v. Heflin Steel Supply Co., 145 Ariz. 73, 699 P.2d 1304 (App. 1985) (when compensation is paid, the law of the compensation state governs third-party subrogation and assignment rights)
- Logerquist v. Danforth, 188 Ariz. 16, 932 P.2d 281 (App. 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Tr. Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 38 P.3d 12 (2002) (construe evidence and inferences in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Pima Cty. v. Pima Cty. Law Enf't Merit Sys. Council, 211 Ariz. 224, 119 P.3d 1027 (2005) (statutory interpretation and application reviewed de novo)