Old Republic Life Insurance Co. v. TransWood Inc.
2017 WL 2399344, 2016 La.App. 1 Cir. 0552, 222 So. 3d 995 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An insurer does not have a right of action against a third-party tortfeasor under conventional subrogation if the policy only provides for a right of reimbursement from the insured. An accident and health insurer is not entitled to legal subrogation because its obligation to pay arises from its own contract, not from a shared obligation with the tortfeasor.
Facts:
- In January 2013, Vincent G. Johnson, a professional truck driver, was seriously injured in an accident at a chemical manufacturing facility owned by Axiall in Plaquemine, Louisiana.
- The accident occurred while Johnson was unloading powdered lime from his eighteen-wheeler, which was equipped with a power takeoff unit and rotary displacement blower.
- Johnson became entangled in the truck's offloading system equipment, resulting in significant bodily injuries from which he later died.
- Old Republic Life Insurance Company had issued an occupational accident coverage insurance policy to Johnson.
- Pursuant to the policy, Old Republic made insurance payments to Johnson for the injuries he sustained in the accident.
- The insurance policy did not contain language explicitly granting Old Republic 'subrogation' rights.
- The policy did contain a 'Right of Recovery' clause that allowed Old Republic to recover overpayments from its insured, Johnson, and mentioned its 'reimbursement rights' in the context of a third-party recovery by Johnson.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 30, 2013, Old Republic Life Insurance Company filed suit against TransWood, Tuthill, Axiall, and others in a Louisiana trial court.
- Old Republic later amended its petition to name Muncie Power Products, Inc. and DXP Enterprises, Inc. as additional defendants.
- On July 1, 2015, defendant TransWood filed a peremptory exception of no right of action, arguing Old Republic lacked subrogation rights.
- Other defendants, including Axiall, joined in the exception.
- On August 12, 2015, the trial court held a hearing and orally sustained the exception of no right of action.
- On August 31, 2015, the trial court signed a written judgment dismissing all of Old Republic's claims with prejudice.
- Old Republic, as appellant, filed an appeal from this judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, against the defendants-appellees.
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 an occupational accident insurer have a right of action against alleged third-party tortfeasors for benefits paid to its insured when the insurance policy does not contain express subrogation language, but instead contains a 'Right of Recovery' clause providing for reimbursement from the insured?
Opinions:
Majority - Theriot, J.
No, an insurer does not have a right of action against alleged tortfeasors under these circumstances. The court reasoned that for an insurer to sue a tortfeasor, it must have either legal or conventional subrogation rights. Legal subrogation was not available to Old Republic because, as a health and accident insurer, its obligation to pay its insured, Johnson, arose from its own contractual covenants (the insurance policy), not from a shared or solidary obligation with the alleged tortfeasors. An insurer is not 'bound with or for' the tortfeasor. For conventional subrogation, the policy itself must clearly grant this right. The court analyzed the policy's 'Right of Recovery' clause and found it established a right of reimbursement, not subrogation. The clause's language focused on Old Republic's right to recover payments from its insured, not on stepping into the insured's shoes to sue a third party directly. The distinction is critical: subrogation allows the insurer to sue the tortfeasor, while reimbursement only gives the insurer a right of repayment from its own insured.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict construction of subrogation rights in Louisiana law, emphasizing that they are not presumed and must be explicitly established. It clearly delineates the difference between subrogation, which transfers the right to sue, and reimbursement, which is merely a right to be paid back from the insured's own recovery. The case serves as a clear warning to insurance carriers that policy language must be precise; to secure a right to sue a tortfeasor directly, the policy must contain unambiguous subrogation language rather than relying on more general 'recovery' or 'reimbursement' clauses.
