Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Shoemake, 111 So. 3d 1207

Shoemake, a Mississippi employee, was injured in Alabama and received Mississippi workers’ compensation benefits from Liberty Mutual.
Shoemake settled a third-party Alabama action for $315,000; Liberty Mutual knew of the action but neither joined nor intervened.
Liberty Mutual later sued Shoemake in Mississippi to recover the full $132,402.65 paid in benefits, asserting Mississippi subrogation rights.
Alabama action was dismissed with prejudice; Shoemake argued Liberty Mutual should share collection costs and that res judicata barred further pursuit.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for Shoemake, applying Alabama law and finding interposition and res judicata defenses, and that Liberty Mutual waived its right by not intervening.
The Court of Appeals held Mississippi law governed subrogation and that intervention was not required; the Mississippi Supreme Court reverses, holding intervention is mandatory to obtain reimbursement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §71-3-71 require intervention to recover?	Liberty Mutual contends intervention not required to obtain reimbursement.	Shoemake contends statutory text and precedent require intervention to trigger reimbursement rights.	Yes; intervention is required to be entitled to reimbursement.
What law governs the subrogation rights of the insurer?	Mississippi law governs the insurer’s subrogation rights when the benefits were paid under Mississippi statute.	Alabama choice-of-law would apply if the third-party action had proceeded under Alabama law.	Mississippi law governs the subrogation rights between Liberty Mutual and Shoemake, but intervention is still required.
Was the circuit court the proper forum for Liberty Mutual’s claim?	Mississippi may hear the action under §71-3-71 if intervention occurred.	Section 71-8-71 intends to consolidate all related claims into a single action; a Mississippi suit is improper if proper procedures were followed in the third-party action.	The Mississippi state court action was improper; Liberty Mutual waived its rights by not intervening, and the claims should have been resolved in the third-party action or joined through proper procedural steps.

Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. McNeal, 943 So.2d 658 (Miss. 2006) (intervention not strictly required to enforce lien but better practice to intervene)
Sneed v. Verdun, 611 So.2d 947 (Miss. 1992) (intervention timely can protect subrogation rights)
Kidwell v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R.R., 168 So.2d 735 (Miss. 1964) (intervention ensures reimbursement for incurred costs)
Merchants Co. v. Hutchinson, 199 So.2d 813 (Miss. 1967) (mandates distribution of proceeds; intervention aids protection of subrogation rights)
Richardson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 102 So.2d 368 (Miss. 1958) (distribution scheme depends on employer’s or insurer’s intervention)
Index Drilling Co. v. Williams, 137 So.2d 525 (Miss. 1962) (if insurer joins, reimbursement from net proceeds)
Owen & Galloway v. Travelers Insurance Co., 499 So.2d 776 (Miss. 1986) (court presides over distribution of settlement in single action; intervention anticipated)
Powe v. Jackson, 109 So.2d 546 (Miss. 1959) (settlement pre-suit approvals preserve subrogation rights)