Stancil v. ACE USA
211 N.J. 276
N.J.2012Background
- Wade Stancil, injured in 1995 at Orient Originals, received workers’ compensation from ACE USA.
- In 2006, a compensation order declared total disability; plaintiff had incurred over $560,000 in benefits already paid.
- Starting in 2007, Stancil sought payment of outstanding medical bills; the compensation court found willful and intentional nonpayment and awarded counsel fees.
- The court noted ACE USA’s limited enforcement power and suggested seeking relief in Superior Court after prior orders went unheeded.
- In 2009, Stancil filed a Superior Court action alleging willful noncompliance by ACE USA caused additional pain, suffering, and medical harms.
- The trial court and Appellate Division held the Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity barred such common-law claims; the case reached the Supreme Court for certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a common-law tort claim against a workers’ compensation carrier is permissible. | Stancil argues for a direct tort remedy for pain and suffering due to carrier noncompliance. | ACE USA contends the Act's exclusivity bars any such common-law action. | No; the Act exclusivity bars a new common-law remedy. |
| Whether 2008 amendments to the Act foreclose a common-law action against a carrier for willful noncompliance. | Amendments should not foreclose possible extra-remedial actions recognized by equity or public policy. | Amendments created a contained enforcement scheme (contempt, penalties) and precluded civil referrals or tort claims. | Yes; amendments negate a broad common-law action against carriers. |
| Whether creating a tort remedy would undermine the Legislature’s workers’ compensation framework. | Common-law relief is necessary to address recalcitrant carriers and worsened injuries. | A tort remedy would disrupt the compensation system and cause inconsistent outcomes and potential double recovery. | Yes; the remedy would undermine the statutory framework and is inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161 (1985) (workers’ comp quid pro quo; exclusivity recognized)
- Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co., Inc., 170 N.J. 602 (2002) (exclusivity under workers’ comp; statutory framework)
- Mull v. Zeta Const. Prod., 176 N.J. 385 (2003) (limits of exceptions to exclusivity; rare circumstances)
- Cortes v. Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 232 N.J. Super. 519 (App.Div.1988) (increased disabilities and aggravated injuries are compensable)
- Flick v. PMA Ins. Co., 394 N.J. Super. 605 (App.Div.2007) (Appellate view on enforcement remedies and possible Superior Court action)
- Crippen v. Cent. Jersey Concrete Pipe Co., 176 N.J. 397 (2003) (exceptional direct actions within exceptions to exclusivity)
- Mager v. United Hosp. of Newark, 88 N.J. Super. 421 (App.Div.1965) (insurer actions outside comp scheme when outside mandated coverage)