Lexplug logoLexplug

Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Supreme Court of the United States
100 S. Ct. 925, 1980 U.S. LEXIS 26, 445 U.S. 74 (1980)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), a stevedore is entitled to full reimbursement of compensation payments from a longshoreman's recovery against a third-party shipowner, without reduction for a proportionate share of the longshoreman's legal expenses.


Facts:

  • William E. Bloomer, Jr., a longshoreman, was injured while working on the vessel S.S. Pacific Breeze.
  • Bloomer received $17,152.83 in workers' compensation benefits from his employer's insurance carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
  • Seeking damages beyond the compensation payments, Bloomer filed a negligence lawsuit against the owner of the vessel, claiming the deck was slippery and dangerous.
  • During settlement negotiations with the shipowner, Bloomer asked Liberty Mutual to reduce its reimbursement lien by a proportionate share of the legal costs required to sue the shipowner.
  • Liberty Mutual refused to reduce its lien and insisted on full reimbursement of the $17,152.83.
  • Bloomer eventually settled the claim against the shipowner for $60,000.

Procedural Posture:

  • Bloomer filed a diversity action against the shipowner in the United States District Court.
  • Liberty Mutual successfully moved to intervene in the action to assert its lien.
  • Bloomer moved for summary judgment requesting that Liberty Mutual's lien be reduced by a proportionate share of the litigation expenses.
  • The District Court denied Bloomer's motion and ordered full reimbursement to Liberty Mutual.
  • Bloomer appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision.
  • Bloomer petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act require a stevedore to pay a proportionate share of the legal expenses incurred by a longshoreman in a successful third-party negligence suit against a shipowner?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Marshall

No, the stevedore is not required to pay a proportionate share of the longshoreman's legal expenses and is entitled to full reimbursement of its lien. The Court reasoned that the legislative history and structure of the LHWCA indicate Congress intended for employers to fully recoup compensation payments to ensure the financial viability of the compensation system. The Act explicitly allows an employer to recover all legal costs when the employer brings the suit, implying a similar priority when the employee brings the suit. Furthermore, requiring the stevedore to pay legal fees would effectively provide the longshoreman with a 'double recovery' in excess of the actual damages determined by the lawsuit. The Court rejected the application of the equitable 'common fund' doctrine, noting that Congress had overhauled the Act in 1972 to reduce litigation costs for stevedores, not increase them.


Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

Yes, the stevedore should bear a proportionate share of the litigation costs because it directly benefits from the recovery the longshoreman obtained. Justice Blackmun argued that the equitable 'common fund' doctrine should apply because the longshoreman's attorney created a fund that reimbursed the stevedore. Under the majority's rule, the stevedore has 'everything to gain and nothing to lose' by sitting back while the longshoreman takes all the risk of litigation. The dissent contended that the 1972 Amendments aligned the interests of the stevedore and the longshoreman, making it fair for them to share the costs of the recovery. Blackmun also disputed the 'double recovery' argument, noting that the longshoreman's net recovery is always reduced by attorney's fees.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the priority of statutory workers' compensation liens over the equitable 'common fund' doctrine in federal maritime law. By ensuring that employers/insurers are fully reimbursed before the plaintiff calculates net recovery, the Court prioritizes the solvency of the compensation fund over the equitable distribution of litigation costs. This creates a bright-line rule for the distribution of third-party tort settlements under the LHWCA: 1) Attorney's fees are deducted from the gross recovery, 2) The full compensation lien is paid to the insurer, and 3) The plaintiff receives the remainder. This ruling removes the incentive for insurers to voluntarily contribute to legal costs in third-party actions.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bloomer v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"