Podgurski v. OneBeacon Ins. Co.
Citation | 374 Md. 133,821 A.2d 400 |
Decision Date | 10 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 90,90 |
Parties | Deborah PODGURSKI v. ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Mark W. Oakley (Maggie I. Kaminer, Rockville, on brief), for appellant.
S. Patrick Sullivan (The Law Offices of Jonathan P. Stebenne, Baltimore, on brief), for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ. Opinion by CATHELL, J.
This case arises out of a complaint for declaratory judgment, together with a motion for summary judgment, filed by Deborah Podgurski, appellant, against OneBeacon Insurance Company, appellee, in the Circuit Court for Frederick County. Appellant opposes appellee's assertion that appellee was entitled to a full reimbursement of the monies it paid to appellant as workers' compensation benefits for an injury appellant sustained when she fell during the course of her employment, where the appellant, in a separate tort action against a third party arising out of the same incident that caused her compensable injury, recovered from the third party tort-feasor money damages in excess of the amount of compensation paid to her by the employer/insurer.
The case was argued before the Honorable G. Edward Dwyer, Jr. on April 17, 2002. Appellant argued that appellee had no right to reimbursement and, in the alternative, that appellee's right to reimbursement was at least limited to the same percentage by which appellant herself was limited as to the recovery of a settlement that was reduced as a result of the bankruptcy of the third party tort-feasor whose conduct was the cause of appellant's injuries. Appellee argued that the plain meaning of Maryland Code (1991, 1999 Repl.Vol.) § 9-902 of the Labor and Employment Article (hereinafter, § 9-902)1 entitled it to receive a full reimbursement for the compensation award it paid to appellant from appellant's recovery from the third party tort-feasor. Judge Dwyer granted judgment in favor of appellee. On May 17, 2002, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. This Court, on December 11, 2002, on our own initiative, granted a writ of certiorari to undertake review of this issue before the intermediate appellate court acted. Podgurski v. Onebeacon, 372 Md. 132, 812 A.2d 288 (2002).
Appellant presents three questions for our review:
Appellee rephrases the issue:
While we resolve the issue, we do not specifically address each of appellant's questions. We hold that the essential question here presented, i.e., whether under its right of subrogation outlined in § 9-902, appellee can recover the entire amount of the money it paid to appellant pursuant to a workers' compensation claim after appellant received a greater amount from a third party tort-feasor, is directly governed by the plain meaning of § 9-902(e)(2). As such, we hold that the Circuit Court for Frederick County was correct in its finding that under the provisions of the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act, § 9-902(e)(2), appellee, a workers' compensation insurer, was entitled to recover the full amount of its lien from appellee's actual recovery received from a third party tort-feasor.
The parties in the case sub judice, pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-501(g)2 and in lieu of filing a record extract, agreed to stipulate to a statement of facts. The undisputed facts are, in part, as follows:
670 A.2d at 955 (citing Richard P. Gilbert & Robert L. Humphreys, Jr., Maryland Workers' Compensation Handbook § 16.1-5, 325 (2d ed.1993, 1995 Cum.Supp.).) Section 9-902(e), in turn, directs the distribution of the award received by the employee from the third party.
In Bachmann v. Glazer, 316 Md. 405, 412-13, 559 A.2d 365, 368-69 (1989), this Court stated that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Design Kitchen and Baths v. Lagos
...of the claimant," Harris v. Board of Education of Howard County, 375 Md. 21, 57, 825 A.2d 365, 387 (2003); Podgurski v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 374 Md. 133, 142, 821 A.2d 400, 406 (2003) (citing Watson v. Grimm, 200 Md. 461, 472, 90 A.2d 180, 185 (1952)); Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Ca......
-
Chaney Enterprises Ltd. Partnership v. Windsor
...from the tort-feasor the compensation it has paid." Saadeh, 150 Md.App. at 314, 819 A.2d 1158; see Podgurski v. OneBeacon Insurance Co., 374 Md. 133, 139-140, 821 A.2d 400 (2003). Indeed, if an employee elects to receive compensation benefits as a result of an injury caused by a third party......
-
Hill v. Cross Country
...and good conscience, should pay it. It is an appropriate means of preventing unjust enrichment . . . ." Podgurski v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 374 Md. 133, 141, 821 A.2d 400, 405 (2003) (quoting 10 S. WILLISTON, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS § 1265 (Walter. H.E. Jaeger 3d ed.1957)). Subrogat......
-
Balt. Cnty. v. Ulrich
...to enforce third-party liability for compensable injuries has existed for nearly a century. See Podgurski v. OneBeacon Ins. Co. , 374 Md. 133, 145-47 & nn.6-7, 821 A.2d 400 (2003). The Act establishes a "two-pronged authorization" to sue a third party after an employee receives workers' com......