Workers Compensation Fund v. Argonaut Insurance Co.
2011 UT 61
Utah2011Background
- Argonaut failed to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the district court's final judgment.
- Argonaut filed a postjudgment filing titled “objection to judgment” and then filed its notice of appeal 30 days after the district court disposed of that objection.
- Argonaut urged the objection could be treated as a rule 59 motion tolling the appeal period or as a rule 60(b) motion giving this Court jurisdiction.
- The district court remanded the case after Wadman Corporation’s statutory-employer determination, and WCF had voluntarily paid Mr. Searle’s benefits.
- The district court approved a proposed judgment from WCF reflecting this Court’s prior Wadman decision and later entered final judgment.
- Argonaut subsequently filed additional objections to the judgment, which the district court again overruled, and Argonaut filed its notice of appeal two days after the final denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Argonaut’s notice of appeal was timely. | Argonaut asserts the objection tolls under rule 59. | WCF argues the objection is not a tolling motion under rule 4(b). | No; appeal untimely; not tolling under rules 59 or 60(b). |
| Whether Argonaut’s objection can be construed as a rule 59 motion. | Argonaut contends it sought relief as a rule 59 motion. | Objection was not captioned or supported as rule 59; district court did not treat it as such. | Cannot be construed as rule 59; tolling not available. |
| Whether Argonaut’s objection can be construed as a rule 60(b) motion. | Argonaut argues relief could be sought under rule 60(b). | Motion did not comply with rule 60(b) form or enumerated grounds. | Cannot be construed as rule 60(b); no reviewable motion. |
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter the judgment on remand. | Argonaut questions district court’s jurisdiction over damages issues. | District court properly followed Wadman decision; no jurisdictional defect. | Court lacked jurisdiction to hear merits due to untimely appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillett v. Price, 135 P.3d 861 (Utah 2006) (form of motion matters for tolling appeal rights; reconsideration-like filings do not toll appeal time)
- Prowswood, Inc. v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 676 P.2d 952 (Utah 1984) (jurisdictional failure to timely appeal triggers dismissal)
- Clark v. Archer, 242 P.3d 758 (Utah 2010) (supreme court reaffirmed tolling principles in appeal timing)