LTD v. Charlie Smith (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

FACTS

In this action the plaintiff, Pacific Insurance Company, LTD., is attempting to recover on a lien that it has on a settlement that the defendant, Charles A. Smith (hereinafter “Smith”), received as a result of an injury that he suffered in a motor vehicle accident.   In May 2007 the defendant, Smith, was injured when the bus that he was driving during the course of his employment with Peter Pan Bus Lines Trust (Peter Pan), collided with a car that was being driven by Helmut Steinnagel (hereinafter also “Steinnagel”).   As a result of the accident the plaintiff paid a total of $63,960.54 in Workers' Compensation benefits to the defendant on behalf of Peter Pan and the Hartford, through the plaintiff, is subrogated to the rights of Peter Pan.

In March 2009 the defendant filed an action against Steinnagel alleging that Steinnagel was negligent in his operation of his car.   Thereafter, Peter Pan and the plaintiff notified the defendant and Steinnagel that they had paid Workers' Compensation benefits to the defendant, and that they were asserting a lien against any recovery the defendant might receive from Steinnagel as a result of the accident.   The parties have filed a stipulation dated June 19, 2013.   Smith and Steinnagel reached a settlement pursuant to which Steinnagel's insured paid the defendant $100,000.   The notice given by the plaintiff to Steinnagel and Smith of the notice of lien was on June 5, 2009, prior to the settlement of Smith's third-party lawsuit against Steinnagel.   Although Smith was provided with notices and asked to reimburse the Hartford for the Workers' Compensation benefits that were paid to him, he has not reimbursed the plaintiff.

In a single-count complaint, the plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the amount of benefits that the plaintiff paid to the defendant.   The plaintiff, under CGS Sec. 31–293 has a lien on the settlement that the defendant, Smith, received.   The defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Robaina, J., filed a Memorandum of Decision dated October 19, 2011, denying the Motion to Dismiss.

ISSUES AND FINDINGS

1. Is the plaintiff entitled to the reimbursement of $63,960.54?

The short answer is yes.

Judge Robaina's decision is the law of the case, and this Court agrees with it.   The plaintiff has a right to bring this action to recover on its lien even though it did not intervene in the settlement between Steinnagel and Smith.

As for the special defenses, they are rejected.

Defendant claims that plaintiff is collaterally estopped from asserting its claim as the trial court in Charlie Smith v. Helmut Steinnagel, in the New London Judicial District dismissed plaintiff's claims and at a judicial pre-trial authorized the settlement of defendant's personal injury claim without requiring payment of plaintiff's asserted lien.   No evidence has been presented by the defendant that the Superior Court in New London dismissed plaintiff's claim.   Even if such court did dismiss the claim it is not surprising at a pre-trial that the judge did not require payment of plaintiff's lien.   That issue was not before him/her, and since the plaintiff was not a party to that action in New London, the plaintiff's claims could not be dismissed.   Therefore, there is no collateral estoppel or res judicata.

2. Defendant in his second special defense invokes what he calls the Doctrine of Laches on the basis that the plaintiff should have attended the pre-trial.

There was no obligation on the part of the plaintiff to attend the pre-trial once it had filed its lien.

3. Defendant has invoked the Doctrines of Scienti Et Volenti Non Fit Injuria claiming that plaintiff consented to said settlement.

The law dictionary interprets that doctrine to mean “no injury is done to person who understands and consents.”   There is no evidence that the plaintiff consented to anything occurred in New London court.

Since the three special defenses are rejected and the plaintiff is entitled to satisfaction of its lien as stated above, judgment is entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $63,960.54.

Rittenband, JTR

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

Rittenband, Richard M., J.T.R.