United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Plovidba
Decision Date | 02 March 1981 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 78-C-257. |
Citation | 508 F. Supp. 866 |
Parties | UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Jadranska Slobodna PLOVIDBA, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
David W. Neeb, Ross F. Plaetzer, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Joseph V. McGovern, Chicago, Ill., and Ellis R. Herbon, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a maritime personal injury action arising under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901. Patrick J. Huck, a longshoreman-employee of the stevedore Hansen Seaway Service, Ltd., was killed on November 16, 1976, while working aboard the M/V Makarska, a vessel owned by the defendant Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba. His widow Sheila M. Huck and his son Matthew P. Huck receive compensation benefits payable by Hansen's insurer, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Corporation, pursuant to an award made in a compensation order. See 33 U.S.C. § 933(b).
In the course of the trial the question has arisen whether testimony may be received and, in the event the defendant is held liable, damages assessed against it for injuries sustained by Patrick J. Huck's widow and son as a result of his death. The plaintiffs have agreed that Sheila M. Huck and Matthew P. Huck should be dropped from the lawsuit as named parties in accordance with 33 U.S.C. § 933(b), but they maintain that any damages sustained by Sheila M. Huck and Matthew P. Huck can be compensated in a lawsuit brought solely in the name of the insurer. Plaintiffs have also agreed that Hansen Seaway Service, Ltd. should be dropped from the suit as a named plaintiff for reasons not relevant to this memorandum. The defendant maintains the only damages which may be awarded in this action are for expenses incurred by the insurer and past and future workers' compensation payable by it to Sheila and Matthew Huck.
Section 933 of Title 33 U.S.C. provides in part:
It is not disputed that Sheila and Matthew Huck did not commence suit within six months after they received compensation under an award in accordance with 33 U.S.C. § 933(b). It is also not disputed that had they commenced suit within that time they could have recovered damages if liability were established for such items as loss of Patrick Huck's past and future wages and loss of his society and companionship. American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274, 100 S.Ct. 1673, 64 L.Ed.2d 284 (1980); Doca v. Marina Mercante Nicaraguense, S.A., 634 F.2d 30, 1980 AMC 2401 (2d Cir. 1980). What is disputed is whether, once their right to sue a third party is assigned to the employer or its insurer, their damages can be compensated in an action brought by the employer or insurer against a third party.
Prior to 1959, an injured employee or the legal representative of a deceased employee was required to elect between a workers' compensation award and a suit against a third party. In 1959, 33 U.S.C. § 933 was amended to remove the need for election. The Senate Report on the amendment noted that prior law had imposed a hardship on an injured employee in two ways, first, by forcing him frequently to accept compensation in lieu of filing suit due to the need to meet expenses prior to the time a suit could be heard and, second, by allowing unscrupulous persons to "stake" an injured employee in pursuing a suit and in effect to purchase the claim. The Senate Amendment contains the following comment on the purpose of the amendment:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berna-Mork v. Jones
...but for the full amount of the employee's damages. 2A LARSON § 74.31(a) at 14-447 to 14-448 (citing United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Plovidba, 508 F.Supp. 866 (E.D.Wis.1981)). The uninsured motorist carrier could not seriously argue that the compensation carrier could not enforce the u......
-
Nelson v. Rothering
...the employee's damages. 2A ARTHUR LARSON, WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW § 74.31(a) at 14-447, 14-448 (citing United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Plovidba, 508 F.Supp. 866 (E.D.Wis.1981)). As to Nelson's second equitable claim, Nelson is not unfairly treated if Travelers is reimbursed for the......