Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Domtar Paper Co., 113 A.3d 1230

On Dec. 13, 2009 George Lawrence slipped and fell in a parking lot while working for Schneider; Liberty Mutual (Schneider’s WC carrier) paid $33,929.23 in benefits.
Liberty Mutual filed suit captioned “Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, As Subrogee of George Lawrence” against the parking‑lot owners seeking recovery of the benefits; Lawrence did not sue, assign his claim, or join the suit.
Defendants filed preliminary objections arguing an employer/insurer cannot bring an independent subrogation suit when the injured employee has not sued.
Trial court sustained the objections; the Superior Court affirmed, relying on precedent disfavoring splitting the indivisible cause of action and requiring the employee’s suit (or joinder/use practice) to effectuate subrogation under Section 319.
The Supreme Court granted allocatur to decide whether Section 319 allows an employer/insurer to pursue a subrogation claim directly against a third‑party tortfeasor when the compensated employee has not sued.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court: Section 319 does not give employers/insurers an independent right to sue; subrogation must be pursued in the injured employee’s name or with the employee joined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 77 P.S. § 671 (Section 319) allows an employer/insurer to sue a third‑party tortfeasor directly when the injured employee has not sued	Liberty Mutual: Section 319 subrogates employer to employee’s rights, allowing the insurer to "step into the shoes" and sue directly as subrogee; Scalise language permits action in employee’s name even if employee does not sue	Appellees: Section 319 leaves the right of action in the injured employee; Superior Court precedent (Moltz, Reliance, Whirley) forbids splitting the indivisible tort claim and requires the employee to sue or be joined	Held: No. Section 319 does not permit an independent suit by employer/insurer when the employee has not sued; subrogation must be asserted in a single action in the injured employee’s name or with the employee joined.

Scalise v. F.M. Venzie & Co., 152 A. 90 (Pa. 1930) (in subrogation the right of action remains in the injured employee; employer may join or sue in employee’s name)
Moltz v. Sherwood Bros., Inc., 176 A. 842 (Pa. Super. 1935) (insurer has no independent right to sue; subrogation must be worked out through action in injured employee’s name)
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Richmond Machine Co., 455 A.2d 686 (Pa. Super. 1983) (Section 319 is the exclusive remedy; employer/insurer cannot independently sue where employee’s claim is barred or undeclared)
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 under Section 319)
Frazier v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Bayada Nurses, Inc.), 52 A.3d 241 (Pa. 2012) (describing subrogation as stepping into claimant’s shoes; cited dicta regarding suing in employee’s name)
City of Philadelphia v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co., 10 A.2d 434 (Pa. 1940) (rule against splitting causes of action in subrogation context)
Spinelli v. Maxwell, 243 A.2d 425 (Pa. 1968) (reaffirming single‑cause‑of‑action rule; subrogor/subrogee preclusion principles)