Ryan v. Blount Bros. Const., Inc.
927 So.2d 1242, 2006 WL 1007627 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an injured employee has a valid workers' compensation claim, a dispute between the direct employer's insurer and the statutory employer's insurer over primary liability is not a justifiable basis for withholding benefits. In such cases, both insurers can be held solidarily liable for the benefits, as well as for penalties and attorney fees for their unreasonable refusal to pay.
Facts:
- Blount Brothers Construction, Inc. was awarded a contract to construct a retaining wall and subcontracted the concrete work to Ryan Construction Company, Inc.
- Richard Ryan was an owner and employee of Ryan Construction.
- The subcontract required Ryan to be individually insured under Ryan Construction's workers' compensation policy, which was provided by Employers' Self Insurers Fund (ESIF).
- Ryan instructed his insurance broker to obtain this individual coverage and increased his premium payments to ESIF accordingly.
- On February 13, 2003, while operating a track hoe at the job site in the course and scope of his employment, Ryan was accidentally shot by a child and suffered a severe spinal cord injury.
- Following the injury, both Ryan Construction's insurer (ESIF) and Blount Brothers' insurer, Louisiana United Businesses Association Self Insurers Fund (LUBA), refused to pay workers' compensation benefits, disputing which policy provided primary coverage.
- As a result of the insurers' refusal to pay, Ryan's medical expenses were paid by Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company (Blue Cross) through his wife's health insurance policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Ryan filed separate workers' compensation claims against his direct employer, Ryan Construction, and his statutory employer, Blount Brothers, before the Office of Workers' Compensation (OWC).
- Both ESIF, on behalf of Ryan Construction, and LUBA, on behalf of Blount Brothers, disputed coverage and refused to pay benefits.
- Blue Cross filed a petition of intervention to seek reimbursement for the $188,307.18 in medical expenses it paid on Ryan's behalf.
- The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) granted partial summary judgment finding ESIF's policy covered Ryan but denied ESIF's motion to be dismissed from the case.
- After a trial, the WCJ ordered ESIF to pay Ryan's permanent disability benefits and medical expenses.
- The WCJ assessed $4,000 in penalties and over $21,000 in attorney fees against LUBA for its unreasonable failure to pay benefits.
- The WCJ ordered ESIF to reimburse Blue Cross, but reduced the reimbursement by 75%, to approximately 25% of the total paid.
- All parties, including claimant Ryan, insurers ESIF and LUBA, and intervenor Blue Cross, appealed the WCJ's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When both a direct employer's insurer and a statutory employer's insurer refuse to pay workers' compensation benefits due to a coverage dispute between them, are both insurers solidarily liable to the injured employee for benefits, penalties, and attorney fees?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, J.
Yes. When both a direct employer's insurer and a statutory employer's insurer refuse to pay workers' compensation benefits due to a coverage dispute between them, both insurers are solidarily liable to the injured employee for benefits, penalties, and attorney fees. The court reasoned that Blount Brothers, as the principal contractor, was a statutory employer and its insurer, LUBA, was primarily liable to pay benefits when the direct employer's insurer, ESIF, failed to do so. LUBA's proper recourse was to pay the benefits and then seek indemnification from ESIF. The dispute between the two insurers was not a reasonable basis to controvert the claim and withhold all benefits from the injured employee. Because both insurers unreasonably denied the claim, they are solidarily liable for the full benefits, as well as for multiple penalties for each distinct violation of the Workers' Compensation Act and for attorney fees. The court also held that Blue Cross was entitled to full reimbursement from the insurers for the medical expenses it paid, as the specific statute governing health insurer reimbursement (La. R.S. 23:1205(B)) overrides the general offset provision.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the policy of protecting injured workers by preventing insurers from delaying or denying benefits while litigating liability amongst themselves. It solidifies the application of solidary liability between a statutory employer's insurer and a direct employer's insurer, ensuring a prompt source of payment for the claimant. The ruling's imposition of multiple penalties for separate statutory violations serves as a powerful deterrent against insurer non-compliance. Furthermore, the case clarifies a conflict in Louisiana statutes by holding that a health insurer's specific right to full reimbursement prevails over general offset provisions, impacting how future subrogation claims between health and workers' compensation carriers are resolved.
