Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Crowley

• Court: Texas Civil Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: McDONALD
• Citation: Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Crowley, 509 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. Ct. App. 1974)
• Decision Date: 25 April 1974
• Docket Number: No. 5305,5305
• Parties: HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO., Appellant, v. Karen Sue Richardson CROWLEY, Appellee.

Page 939

509 S.W.2d 939

HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO., Appellant, v. Karen Sue Richardson CROWLEY, Appellee.

No. 5305.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Waco.

April 25, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1974.

Garrett, Settle & Callaway, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Daniel J. Smith, Grand Prairie, for appellee.

OPINION

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is a Workmen's Compensation case in which appellee Karen Sue Richardson Crowley, married daughter of a deceased workman, filed claim for one-half of the death benefits. Appellant Insurance Company had previously paid the full death benefits to the widow of the deceased workman (who was stepmother of appellee). Trial was to a jury which found:

1) At the time of the injury of Billy H. Richardson, Karen Sue Richardson Crowley was dependent for support, in whole or in part, on Billy H. Richardson for any contributions, services, or other things of value she was receiving from him.

2) Karen Sue Richardson Crowley did not inform Martha Ann Richardson that Karen Sue Richardson Crowley was making no claim for benefits under the Workman's Compensation Act for the death of Billy H. Richardson.

3) Karen Sue Richardson Crowley did not know prior to the payment of the claim of Martha Ann Richardson by Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, that Martha Ann Richardson was claiming all death benefits due under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the death of Billy H. Richardson.

The trial court entered judgment finding that Billy H. Richardson was injured in the course and scope of his employment; that appellee was dependent for support, in whole or in part on deceased, and awarded appellee 1/2 the Workman's Compensation benefits found to be due.

Appellant Insurance Company has appealed on 15 points presenting 5 basic contentions.

Appellant's 1st contention is the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case becuase the Industrial Accident Board had approved a settlement of claim for death benefits of the deceased workman, and such order had not been appealed from or set aside.

The Industrial Accident Board approved settlement of claim for death benefits of the deceased workman made by deceased widow (stepmother of appellee). But appellee was not a party to such action, and did not have intrinsic knowledge nor carry on negotiations with appellant prior to appellant paying her stepmother, a third party. Appellee did make timely application for death benefits as provided by the Workman's Compensation Act and timely perfected her appeal therefrom .

In such situation the District Court had jurisdiction. National Loan & Investment Co. v. Pelphrey & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 39 S.W.2d 926, NWH; Gentry v. Travelers Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 459 S.W.2d 709, NRE; Home Indemnity Co. v. Edwards, Tex.Civ.App., 488 S.W.2d 561, N.R.E.

Appellant's 2nd contention is that Issue 1 finding appellee dependent on deceased at the Time of injury of deceased cannot support the judgment. Appellant asserts dependency status at the time of death is required by Article 8306, Sec. 8A Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.St.

The deceased workman was injured on January 23, 1970, and he died from his injuries on February 13, 1970. The evidence shows and the jury found...