Martin v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CAS. INS.
1994 WL 316849, 638 So. 2d 1067, 1994 La. LEXIS 1862 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A health and accident insurer who pays for its insured's medical expenses is not entitled to legal subrogation against a tortfeasor because the insurer's contractual obligation to pay medical benefits is separate and distinct from the tortfeasor's delictual obligation to repair tort damages; they are not bound 'with or for' each other.
Facts:
- On October 27, 1987, Bruce Martin was a guest passenger in a vehicle and was injured in a two-vehicle collision.
- Martin incurred medical expenses as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident.
- Golden Rule Insurance Company was Martin's health and accident insurer.
- Pursuant to its insurance policy with Martin, Golden Rule paid for Martin's medical expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Bruce Martin sued the drivers, owners, and insurers of both vehicles in the trial court.
- Golden Rule Insurance Company intervened in the lawsuit, seeking to recoup its medical payments from the defendants.
- The trial court sustained Martin's exception of no cause of action and dismissed Golden Rule's intervention.
- Golden Rule, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted writs to review the judgment of the court of appeal.
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 a health and accident insurer, by paying its insured's medical expenses following an accident, become legally subrogated to the insured's right to recover those expenses from the tortfeasors under Louisiana Civil Code article 1829(3)?
Opinions:
Majority - Watson, J.
No. A health and accident insurer does not become legally subrogated to its insured's cause of action against a tortfeasor simply by making medical payments required by its contract. Legal subrogation under Civil Code article 1829(3) only occurs when an obligor pays a debt 'he owes with others or for others.' The court reasoned that the insurer is not bound 'with' the tortfeasor because they are not solidary obligors; their obligations arise from different sources (contract vs. tort) and are for different things (stipulated medical expenses vs. repair of tort damages). The insurer is also not bound 'for' the tortfeasor, as it is a principal obligor paying its own contractual debt, not a surety securing the tortfeasor's debt. The court concluded that allowing legal subrogation would provide a windfall to the insurer, which can protect its interests by including a conventional subrogation clause in its policies.
Dissenting - Marcus, J.
Yes. A health and accident insurer should be legally subrogated to its insured's claim for medical expenses against a tortfeasor. The dissent argues that the requirement in article 1829(3) that an obligor owe a debt 'with others' is satisfied because both the insurer and the tortfeasors are liable for the plaintiff's medical expenses. The dissent contends that the majority's interpretation is too narrow and that solidarity is not required, citing Aetna Insurance Co. v. Naquin. Since the insurer paid the medical expenses, it should have recourse against the tortfeasor who has not yet paid, thus satisfying the conditions for legal subrogation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle in Louisiana law that legal subrogation is to be strictly construed and does not automatically apply to health insurers. It clearly distinguishes an insurer's contractual duty from a tortfeasor's delictual duty, preventing insurers from stepping into their insured's shoes without a specific contractual provision. The ruling places the onus on insurers to bargain for reimbursement rights via conventional subrogation clauses in their policies, thereby preserving the collateral source rule and an insured's potential for double recovery.
