Unified School Dist. No. 259 v. Sloan
Decision Date | 01 April 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 69620,69620 |
Citation | 19 Kan.App.2d 445,871 P.2d 861 |
Parties | , 90 Ed. Law Rep. 822 UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 259, Sedgwick County, Kansas, Appellee, v. Sharon K. SLOAN, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. As the settlement proceeds in the present case were in bulk and did not specify what amounts were attributable to what expenses, the district court did not err in concluding that the medical expenses at issue 2. Where the right of subrogation is by an express agreement between an insurer and its insured, the insurer may proceed against the insured to recover medical benefits it has paid even though the insured has not been compensated in the full amount prayed for by the insured.
were fully included in the settlement amount received by the plaintiff.
3. K.S.A. 40-202, which exempts the insurance plan in the present case from the state insurance code, does not violate public policy. The legislature purposefully chose to exempt certain insurance organizations from the type of regulation found in K.A.R. 40-1-20, which prohibits subrogation clauses providing for reimbursement of medical, surgical, hospital, or funeral expenses.
Jack Scott McInteer and Randall K. Rathbun, of Depew, Gillen & Rathbun, Wichita, for appellant.
John Terry Moore, Thomas R. Powell, and Douglas P. Witteman, of Hinkle, Eberhart & Elkouri, L.L.C., Wichita, for appellee.
Before GERNON, P.J., LEWIS, J., and JOHN W. WHITE, District Judge, assigned.
Sharon Sloan appeals the district court's granting of summary judgment to Unified School District No. 259 (U.S.D. No. 259). The district court found that Sloan was liable under her health insurance plan to reimburse her insurer for health care benefits paid on behalf of her deceased husband out of a settlement received from third parties. The settlement was silent as to allocation of the elements of damage.
Sloan, as an employee of U.S.D. No. 259, participated in its group health plan (Plan). Paragraph XIV.B. of the Plan states:
"This Plan is allowed to recover from the employee any benefits paid for injury or sickness where a third-party has caused the injury or sickness as a result of his/her negligence or wrong and the employee or eligible dependent recovers a judgment or settlement from the third-party for charges allowed by the Plan."
Sloan's husband became ill and eventually died. While he was ill, his health plan paid $32,570 in benefits. Sloan received $427,500 as settlement in a suit against various chemical manufacturers. The suit asked for $1.95 million as damages. U.S.D. No. 259 was not a party to the lawsuit, nor did it intervene. U.S.D. No. 259 did not receive notice of or participate in settlement negotiations.
U.S.D. No. 259 brought suit against Sloan for breach of the insurance contract. The district court granted U.S.D. No. 259 summary judgment, finding as a matter of law that the Plan at issue was not subject to regulation by the Kansas Insurance Department. The court also found:
The district court also found that Sloan's husband's "injury or sickness was also 'caused' as a result of a third party's 'negligence or wrong' as those words are used in Sloan appeals.
the reimbursement provision of [Sloan's] Plan."
Summary judgment is appropriate when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." K.S.A.1993 Supp. 60-256(c).
The record reveals that Sloan did not file an answer to U.S.D. No. 259's summary judgment motion to dispute its list of uncontroverted facts. To defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmovant must come forward with specific, material facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Kroh Bros. Dev. Co., 250 Kan. 754, 762, 863 P.2d 355 (1992).
There being no material issues of controverted fact here, summary judgment was proper.
Sloan argues the district court erred in taking judicial notice of a controverted fact, namely that "the common practice in settlement cases such as in the underlying case, is that where there is a settlement, unless there is some serious dispute about the amount of the medical payments, those are the first items that are agreed upon between the parties." Sloan contends, first, that the amount of money she received as compensation for medical expenses remains unresolved and, second, that she should not be obligated to reimburse the Plan until she is fully compensated for all of her losses.
Sloan argues the district court should not have taken judicial notice of the fact that medical expenses would have been an initial component of the settlement agreements. The Plan itself is silent as to how to prioritize monies received from third parties. Sloan contends the district court improperly granted a priority in favor of the Plan.
Sloan's argument is that in settlement negotiations, medical bills and other items of loss are reduced by a factor related to the risk of litigation before determining the actual amount of the settlement. Therefore, Sloan asserts that whether she was compensated for all of the medical expenses remains a material question of fact, thereby precluding summary judgment.
Sloan's prayer for relief in her lawsuit against the various chemical companies was in the amount of $1.95 million, which included $55,000 for medical and funeral expenses. She settled for a total sum of $427,500. The Plan had paid her $32,570 in benefits. Two of the settlement agreements she signed obligated her to be "responsible for the payment of all expenses, including but not limited to medical and hospital charges ... to any person or entity so entitled by contract."
The sum of these two settlements alone was $157,500. Each of the settlement agreements included specific language releasing the chemical companies from any and all claims for costs, damages, and causes of action related to the allegations in the lawsuit.
The Supreme Court of Minnesota faced a similar question in Westendorf by Westendorf v. Stasson, 330 N.W.2d 699 (Minn.1983). In that case, Westendorf received injuries in an automobile accident, and her insurer paid medical and hospital expenses in the amount of $22,145.01. Westendorf settled with the third-party tortfeasor for $100,000. The settlement agreement stated that Westendorf's damages greatly exceeded the $100,000 payment and that the money was strictly limited to items of noneconomic loss. Westendorf's insurer subsequently sought reimbursement of the medical benefits it had paid under a reimbursement provision similar to the provision in the present case.
Westendorf made the argument that the reimbursement provision did not apply to the settlement proceeds because no part of that recovery was for medical expenses. The court held as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Helfrich v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 14–3179.
...the Kansas antisubrogation regulation apparently does not apply to self-insured single-employer plans. See Unified Sch. Dist. 259 v. Sloan, 19 Kan.App.2d 445, 871 P.2d 861, 867 (1994).7 See United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720, 735, 102 S.Ct. 1373, 71 L.Ed.2d 580 (1982) (principal purp......
-
Franklin v. Healthsource of Arkansas, 96-116
...N.W.2d 699 (Minn.1983) (requiring full recovery in absence of express contract terms to the contrary); Unified School Dist. No. 259 v. Sloan, 19 Kan.App. 2d 445, 871 P.2d 861 (1994) (following Higginbotham ). In Fields v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., supra, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals cit......
-
Duncan v. Integon General Ins. Corp.
...Higginbotham v. Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 312 Ark. 199, 849 S.W.2d 464, 466 (1993) (same); Unified School District No. 259 v. Sloan, 19 Kan.App.2d 445, 871 P.2d 861, 866 (1994) (holding that reimbursement clause in policy was unambiguous), with Garrity v. Rural Mutual Ins. Co., 77 ......
-
Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Hill
...Oetinger v. Polson, 20 Kan.App.2d 255, 257-58, 885 P.2d 1274 (1994), rev. denied 256 Kan. 996 (1995) (quoting U.S.D. No. 259 v. Sloan, 19 Kan.App.2d 445, 452-53, 871 P.2d 861 [1994] " ' "The construction of a written instrument is a question of law, and the instrument may be construed and i......