Stan v. Vences
571 S.W.3d 24
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- In Dec. 2013 Vences sued Stan (doing business as Renaissance Plaster & Design) in Pulaski County Circuit Court, alleging he was injured while working for Stan and that Stan was negligent; complaint also alleged Stan failed to provide workers' compensation benefits.
- Stan was served but did not file an answer; default was entered and, after a damages hearing, the circuit court awarded Vences damages and found Stan had waived workers'-compensation immunity.
- Stan later moved to set aside the default judgment, producing a workers' compensation policy showing coverage effective Oct. 17, 2013–Oct. 17, 2014 and Commission website verification that coverage existed on the accident date (Nov. 21, 2013).
- The circuit court denied the motion, ruling it had subject-matter jurisdiction because Vences’ complaint alleged Stan failed to provide benefits and concluding Stan had waived the exclusive-remedy defense.
- On appeal the court reviewed de novo whether the default judgment was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and whether subject-matter jurisdiction can be waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vences) | Defendant's Argument (Stan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over tort claim | Complaint alleged Stan failed to provide WC benefits, triggering the §11-9-105(b)(1) exception and allowing circuit-court jurisdiction | Employer had WC insurance on accident date; exclusivity under the Workers' Compensation Act gives Commission exclusive, original jurisdiction | Circuit court lacked jurisdiction; claim falls within Commission's exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether default judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction | Circuit court had an "arguable basis" and pleadings determine jurisdiction | Default judgment is void because court acted without subject-matter jurisdiction | Default judgment is void; reversed and dismissed |
| Whether defendant waived exclusive-remedy defense by failing to answer | Plaintiff argued allegation of no coverage meant court could proceed; failure to plead affirmative defense waived it | Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived; a defaulting defendant may still challenge jurisdiction | Waiver finding was erroneous; subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived |
Key Cases Cited
- VanWagoner v. Beverly Enterprises, 334 Ark. 12, 970 S.W.2d 810 (Ark. 1998) (Workers' Compensation Commission has primary/exclusive jurisdiction to decide facts establishing applicability of the Act)
- Rankin v. Farmers Tractor & Equipment Co., 319 Ark. 26, 888 S.W.2d 657 (Ark. 1994) (employer proves exclusive remedy by showing it provided WC insurance in force at time of injury)
- Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 358 Ark. 107, 186 S.W.3d 720 (Ark. 2004) (standards for reviewing collateral attacks on judgments and Rule 55 context)
- Pederson v. Stracener, 354 Ark. 716, 128 S.W.3d 818 (Ark. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised at any time)
- Timmons v. McCauley, 71 Ark. App. 97, 27 S.W.3d 437 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000) (court action without subject-matter jurisdiction is void and unenforceable)