The sole issue presented is whether appellee is entitled to reimbursement from appellant. Because we believe appellee has established a right to reimbursement under a theory of unjust enrichment, we аffirm the court of appeals.
In Liberty Mutual I, we held that appellee was not entitled to a writ of mandamus because an adequate remedy at law was available through an action in the Court of Claims. However, we alsо considered the other two prerequisites to entitlement to a writ of mandamus: whether appellee hаd a clear legal right to reimbursement and whether appellant had a clear legal duty to reimburse. In doing sо we evidently confused the issues, stating first that “[t]he question of * * * [the commission’s] legal duty to reimburse is not * * * clear,” but also that “[u]nder a theory of unjust enrichment, * * * [the commission] would be required to return the $198,374.04 that * * * [Liberty Mutual] advanced to Houston.” Id. at 291-292, 18 OBR at 341-342,
In at least three earlier decisions this court has granted, by writ of mandamus, reimbursement from the commission such as that sоught by appellee. See State, ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1978),
An action in unjust enrichment will
The record clearly supрorts appellee’s contention that Houston was not entitled to benefits under Mississippi law. Since, as the commission ultimately found, Houston was an Ohio resident, hired in Ohio, and only on a job assignment in Mississippi, his injuries were not covered by the workers’ compensation laws of that state. See Mississippi Code Section 71-3-109(3).
Having determined that Houston wаs entitled to benefits in Ohio, the commission became obligated to make payments from the State Insurancе Fund to Houston. R.C. 4123.46. The commission is also obligated to credit payments made under the law of another state by virtue of R.C. 4123.54, which provides in pertinent part: “If any employee or his dependents are awarded workers’ cоmpensation benefits or recover damages from the employer under the laws of another state, thе amount so awarded or recovered, whether paid or to be paid in future installments, shall be
Finally, the Court of Claims erred in granting the commission’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the commission was without statutory authority to reimburse Liberty Mutual. While the commission is a creature of statute with powers and obligations dictated by the General Assembly, it is also an agency of the state subject to suit under the “same rulеs of law applicable to suits between private parties.” R.C. 2743.02(A)(1). Our prior holdings in Louisiana-Pacific, Hunt & Dorman, and Lange clearly support a right to the relief sought by appellee.
Accordingly, we hold that Liberty Mutual hаs established a right to reimbursement from the commission, and thus the decision of the court of appeals is affirmеd.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Mississippi Code Section 71-3-109(3) provides:
“Any employee who has been hired or is regularly employed outside of this state and his employer shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter while such employee is temporarily within this state doing work fоr his employer if such employer has furnished workmen’s compensation insurance coverage under the wоrkmen’s compensation or similar laws for a state other than this state so as to cover such employee’s employment while in this state, provided the extra-territorial provisions of this chapter are recognized in such other state and provided employers and employees who are covered in this state аre likewise exempted from the application of the workmen’s compensation or similar laws of such other state. The benefits under the workmen’s compensation or similar laws of such other state shall be the exclusive remedy against such employer for any injury, whether resulting in death or not, received by such employee while working for such employer in this state.”