Romero v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-1009,84-1009
• Citation: 479 So.2d 694
• Parties: Joyce L. ROMERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. 479 So.2d 694
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 694

479 So.2d 694

Joyce L. ROMERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 84-1009.

479 So.2d 694

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1985.

Preston N. Aucoin, Ville Platte, for plaintiff-appellant.

William J. Aubrey, Roy, Forrest & Lopresto, Lafayette, for defendant-appellee.

Before GUIDRY, DOUCET and LABORDE, JJ.

LABORDE, Judge.

Appellant, Joyce L. Romero, instituted suit against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) for worker's compensation benefits. Ms. Romero was awarded seventy-six dollars ($76.00) per week for the duration of her disability. The trial court further found that State Farm was entitled to a credit for all compensation previously paid to appellant, and to a credit for an overpayment of $2,354.00 made to appellant. Ms. Romero appeals only the portion of the trial court judgment which gives State Farm credit for the overpayment. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the portion of the trial court judgment which gives State Farm a credit for the alleged overpayment.

Ms. Romero brought suit to recover worker's compensation benefits. She alleges that as a result of an accident which occurred on June 28, 1982, while employed by Chef's Fried Chicken in Ville Platte, she became totally and permanently disabled. State Farm is the worker's compensation insurer of Chef's Fried Chicken.

The case was duly heard on the merits on August 15, 1984, and on September 12, 1984, reasons for judgment were rendered by the trial court. The trial court held that Ms. Romero was totally and permanently disabled and entitled to $76.00 per week commencing June 28, 1982, during her disability, together with all medical expenses, less a credit for sums previously paid. The trial court specifically held that State Farm was entitled to a credit of $2,354.00 for the overpayment made to Ms. Romero. State Farm has not appealed; consequently, the trial court judgment awarding Ms. Romero total and permanent disability benefits has become final.

Counsel for Ms. Romero objected to State Farm presenting any evidence showing that an overpayment had been made. The record shows that the objection was based on three grounds, to wit: (1) relevancy; (2) estoppel and; (3) ultra petitionem. Nonetheless, the trial court admitted evidence tending to prove that State Farm erroneously overpaid Ms. Romero $2,354.00.

Apparently, State Farm had miscalculated the amount due Ms. Romero. She had been receiving three hundred and sixty-six dollars ($366.00) every two weeks instead of one hundred fifty-two dollars ($152.00) every two weeks (representing seventy-six dollars ($76.00) per week). The aggregate of the overpayment was stipulated by counsel to equal two thousand three hundred fifty-four dollars ($2,354.00).

The trial judge provided reasons for this judgment in favor of State Farm on this issue:

"As to the second question, plaintiff contends that defendant should have made a reconventional demand for the amount of overpayment or make a demand in a separate suit. Defendant on the other hand, maintains that a judicial admission of this fact was made in a pleading, and therefore, a judicial admission [sic]. The court finds that the law and jurisprudence are in favor of defendant, and is entitled to a credit for the overpayment made to plaintiff."

We disagree with the trial court's legal conclusion and find that the court erred in granting State Farm a credit of $2,354.00 for the overpayment.

State Farm answered the petition of Ms. Romero without raising the issue of overpayment. State Farm failed to make a reconventional demand or to amend its answer to address the issue of overpayment. Any judgment rendered beyond the pleadings is a nullity. State v. Stansberry, 228 La. 655, 83 So.2d 890, 892 (1955). A claim not asserted in the answer or reconventional demand affords no basis for judgment for a defendant. Homes v. James Buckley & Co., 165 La. 874, 116 So. 218 (La.1928). In Anderson v. Tudor Construction Company, 281 So.2d 817 (La.App. 3d Cir.1973), we held that the burden of proof rests upon defendants, the employer and its insurer, to establish their claim for reimbursement under the reconventional demand. Id. at 818. In Anderson, defendants did reconvene to recover the alleged overpayment and we permitted recovery. In this case...