Kingston v. Lyon Construction, Inc.
207 N.C. App. 703
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Kingston exposed to asbestos at Lyon Construction from 1994 to 2000 and diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2006.
- Kingston filed a workers' compensation claim against Lyon Construction and PMA Insurance Group in 2006; claim denied by the employer-employee entities.
- Deputy Commissioner awarded indemnity and medical benefits; Full Commission affirmed the award in 2009.
- During workers' compensation proceedings, Kingston pursued third-party asbestos product claims; settlements occurred with several manufacturers.
- On 5 June 2009 Kingston moved in Rockingham County Superior Court to determine Respondents' lien under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-10.2(j); hearings occurred July 2009 with sealed settlements.
- Sept. 14, 2009 orders: Respondents' motion to introduce newly discovered evidence denied; lien reduced to zero.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 97-10.2(j) authorize Superior Court jurisdiction over a lien when third-party settlements are final? | Kingston argues settlements are final and binding. | Respondents contend jurisdiction requires contingent or unresolved third-party actions. | Yes; final settlements trigger jurisdiction. |
| Are Kingston's third-party settlements sufficient to bind the court under § 97-10.2(j) when future settlements may occur? | Settlements already performed, not contingent on future actions. | Settlements could be superseded by future settlements. | Settlements already performed suffice; future settlements do not defeat jurisdiction. |
| Was the 60(b) motion improperly used to admit newly discovered evidence after hearing but before final order? | Rule 60(b) should permit admission of new evidence. | Rule 60(b) applies to final judgments; hearing alone is not final. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Rule 60(b) not applicable here. |
| Did the trial court properly exercise discretion under § 97-10.2(j) in reducing the lien to zero based on net recovery and other factors? | Net recoveries were substantial; should reduce lien. | Lien should reflect anticipated future benefits and other factors. | Yes; court properly balanced factors and reduced lien to zero. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ales v. T.A. Loving Co., 163 N.C.App. 350 (2004) (defines 'settlement' for § 97-10.2(j))
- Hieb v. Lowery, 344 N.C. 403 (1996) (plain meaning of 'judgment' under § 97-10.2(j))
- Estate of Bullock v. C.C. Mangum Co., 188 N.C.App. 518 (2008) (requires consideration of statutory factors in § 97-10.2(j))
- In re Biddix, 138 N.C.App. 500 (2000) (abuse of discretion standard in lien determinations)
- Sink v. Easter, 288 N.C. 183 (1975) (Rule 60(b) applicability limited to final judgments)
- Kirby Bldg. Sys., Inc. v. McNiel, 327 N.C. 234 (1990) (oral rulings do not constitute final judgments)
- Rea v. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 15 N.C.App. 620 (1972) (trial court discretion to reopen evidence before judgment)