Horsey v. STONE & WEBSTER ENG. CORPORATION
Decision Date | 16 May 1958 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 554. |
Citation | 162 F. Supp. 649 |
Parties | Frank HORSEY and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION and C. E. Miles, Jr., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
DeFant & Lynch, Negaunee, Mich., Humphrey & Humphrey, Ironwood, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Wheaton L. Strom, Escanaba, Mich., for defendants.
Plaintiff, Frank Horsey, commenced an action against Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, for damages for injuries received as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant, its agents, or employees. A consent judgment was entered in the amount of $20,000, and by stipulation of counsel there was reserved to this court a decision as to the application of the provisions of the Michigan Statute, being § 17.189 M.S.A., Comp.Laws Supp. 1956, § 413.15, relative to the liability of the respective parties for the attorney fees and expenses of plaintiff's counsel. No issue is raised as to the value of the services or as to the propriety of the expenses. Plaintiff's counsel had expenses in the amount of $440.19, and had an agreement with the plaintiff that the fees of counsel would be 33 1/3 % of the gross recovery.
It is the theory and claim of the attorneys for the plaintiff that the compensation insurance carrier of plaintiff's employer is liable for a proportionate share of the attorney fees and expenses of the plaintiff under the terms of the statute above referred to. The section of the statute in question provides as follows:
It is the theory of the Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier for plaintiff's employer which paid compensation benefits to the plaintiff, that the attorney fees and expenses should be deducted from the gross recovery, that the insurer should thereafter be reimbursed in full in the amount of $4,326.59, for benefits paid to and for the plaintiff under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that any balance should be payable to the plaintiff. The insurer relies upon Foster v. Buckner, 6 Cir., 203 F.2d 527, but an examination of that decision will make it obvious that the question of apportionment of expenses and attorney fees was not before that court and was not decided by that court. Other cases cited by the parties, Travelers Insurance Company v. Lumber Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 20 N.J.Super. 265, 89 A.2d 717; Voris v. Gulf-Tide Stevedores, 5 Cir., 211 F.2d 549, certiorari denied 348 U.S. 823, 75 S.Ct. 37, 99 L.Ed. 649; Ocean S. S. Co. of Savannah, v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 925; Calhoun v. West End Brewing Co., 269 App.Div. 398, 56 N.Y.S.2d 105; In re Estate of Shields, 320 Ill.App. 522, 51 N.E.2d 816, are not applicable since they interpret statutes which are in different language than that used by the Michigan Legislature. This is primarily a matter for the interpretation of the statute of the State of Michigan and for a determination of the intention of the Michigan Legislature.
As was said in Roberts Tobacco Co. v. Michigan Department of Revenue, 322 Mich. 519, 530, 34 N.W.2d 54, 59:
This entire matter of interpretation of statutes to determine the intention of the legislature is covered in 21 Michigan Law and Practice Encyclopedia, Statutes, § 82, p. 82 et seq.:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Banoski v. Motor Crane Service, Inc.
...the above statutory provision was Potter v. Vetor (1959), 355 Mich. 328, 94 N.W.2d 832; also Horsey v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (W.D.Mich.1958), 162 F.Supp. 649. In Potter, plaintiff was injured by a third party tortfeasor, and the employer, through its compensation carrier, ......
-
Franges v. General Motors Corp.
...on appeal in which this issue has been specifically raised are subject to this determination."8 See Horsey v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 162 F.Supp. 649 (W.D.Mich., 1958).9 1965 P.A. 44, amending 1948 C.L. 412.9 and 412.10.10 In 1952 the amount payable to an injured employee without......
-
Mead v. Peterson-King Co.
...proportionate share of the expenses in a recovery from a third-party tortfeasor was set forth in Horsey v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. (W.D.Mich., 1958), 162 F.Supp. 649, 654. As a point of information, we note that compliance with the tabulation method in Horsey would not substantial......
-
Hakkinen v. Northern Advertising Co.
...subrogation of the money it has paid the plaintiff. Potter v. Vetor, 355 Mich. 328, 94 N.W.2d 832 (1959); Horsey v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 162 F.Supp. 649 (W.D.Mich.1958); and Mead v. Peterson-King Co., 24 Mich.App. 530, 180 N.W.2d 304 (1970) held that the employer's or his insu......