Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Domtar Paper Co.
77 A.3d 1282
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- On Dec. 13, 2009, George Lawrence, an employee of Schneider National, slipped in a parking lot on property alleged to be owned/maintained by Appellees and injured his knee while working in the scope of employment.
- Liberty Mutual (Schneider’s workers’ compensation carrier) paid $83,929.23 in benefits to Lawrence and designated itself as his subrogee.
- Liberty Mutual sued the property owners (Appellees) for negligence to recover the benefits it paid.
- Appellees filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing Liberty Mutual lacked an independent cause of action because Lawrence had not sued in his own right.
- The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed Liberty Mutual’s complaint; Liberty Mutual appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of preliminary objections | Objections filed 2 days late; should be denied as untimely | Two-day delay de minimis; no prejudice; trial court discretion to accept | Court: no abuse of discretion; two-day delay permissible when no prejudice |
| Reliance on unpublished authority | Trial court improperly relied on unpublished memorandum | Unpublished decision mirrored published precedent and trial court also relied on published authority | Court: reliance on unpublished was improper but harmless because published precedent supports result |
| Whether insurer has independent subrogation cause of action under §319 | Liberty Mutual: Section 319 (Scalise language) allows insurer to sue independently when employee does not sue | Appellees: §319 requires action be pursued in employee’s name; insurer has no independent cause of action | Court: insurer has no independent cause of action; must proceed in employee’s name or join/intervene; affirmed trial court |
| Precedent to apply (Supreme Court v. Superior Court) | Liberty Mutual: Supreme Court precedent supports subrogation rights including employer pursuing suit | Appellees: Superior Court precedent (Reliance, Moltz, Whirley) restricts independent insurer suits to prevent splitting claims | Court: follows Superior Court line (post-Scalise decisions) limiting independent insurer causes of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Scalise v. F.M. Venzie & Co., 301 Pa. 815, 152 A. 90 (1930) (Supreme Court explained right of action remains with injured employee and noted employer may sue in employee’s name)
- Moltz to Use of Royal Indemnity Co. v. Sherwood Bros. Inc., 116 Pa. Super. 231, 176 A. 842 (1935) (employer/insurer subrogation must be enforced in injured employee’s name; wrongful act indivisible)
- Reliance Ins. Co. v. Richmond Machine Co., 309 Pa. Super. 430, 455 A.2d 686 (1983) (section 319 is exclusive remedy; insurer has no independent cause of action and must proceed on behalf of employee)
- Whirley Indus. Inc. v. Segel, 316 Pa. Super. 75, 462 A.2d 800 (1983) (reiterates that worker must sue third party and insurer is subrogated; no independent insurer cause of action)
- Peters Creek Sanitary Auth. v. Welch, 545 Pa. 309, 681 A.2d 167 (1996) (Rule 1026(a) is permissive; courts may accept late pleadings when no prejudice and justice requires)