Williams v. Utah State Dept. of Finance, 11753

• Decision Date: 29 January 1970
• Docket Number: No. 11753,11753
• Citation: 464 P.2d 596,23 Utah 2d 438
• Parties: d 438 Don Gerald WILLIAMS, James Allen Scott, Jeanette Walton, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Walton, Deceased, Boyd Simmons, Angelo Melo, Waulstine McNeeley and William J. Roedel, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE as Administrator of the State Insurance Fund, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 596

464 P.2d 596

23 Utah 2d 438

Don Gerald WILLIAMS, James Allen Scott, Jeanette Walton Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Walton, Deceased Boyd Simmons, Angelo Melo, Waulstine McNeeley and William J Roedel, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UTAH STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE as Administrator of the State Insurance Fund, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 11753.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Jan. 29, 1970.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Leedy & Bown, Richard J. Leedy, Salt Lake City, for defendant-appellant.

Ford G. Scalley, Gayle Dean Hunt, Dwight L. King, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs-respondents.

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from judgments for each of the above plaintiffs, requiring the State Insurance Fund, carrier for Workmen's Compensation claims, to pay a proportionate share of the costs and attorneys' fees in actions brought by plaintiffs against third-party tortfeasors, where judgments were recovered and the plaintiffs reimbursed the Fund in full for the amounts of awards paid to them from the Insurance Fund,--all of which is provided for and governed by Title 35--1--62, Utah Code Annotated 1953, set out at length in McConnell v. Comm. of Finance, 13 Utah 2d 395, 375 P.2d 394 (1962), a case relied on by appellant in the instant litigation. Reversed, with no costs awarded.

Pertinent and essential facts may be abstracted as follows: Each plaintiff) 1) suffered on-the-job injuries, 2) received compensation from the Fund under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Title 35--1, U.C.A.1953), 3) sued and recovered judgment against third-party tortfeasors, 4) paid the costs and attorney's fees incident thereto, 5) returned to the Fund amounts they had received therefrom, 6) but under protest, after refusal of the administrators of the Fund to share in such expenses, 7) all of which occurred before this court's decision in Worthen v. Shurtleff & Andrews, Inc., ¹ which required those administering the Fund to share such expenses in a similar case, but 8) After the then subsisting governing case of McConnell v. Comm. of Finance was decided by this court, which case was overruled in a three to two decision in the Worthen case, insofar as it was inconsistent with the latter decision.

The main point on appeal and our conclusions with respect thereto are as follows:

The Worthen v. Shurtleff should not be applied retroactively so as to permit the plaintiffs here to recover part of their costs and attorneys' fees incident to their independent actions against third-party tortfeasors. We agree with this contention.

The McConnell case, saying that the insurance carrier, which was not a party to the action against the third-party tortfeasor, did not have to share costs and attorneys' fees under the statute, which required full reimbursement to the carrier, was then the only case interpreting the act involved in not only the Worthen case but the instant cases. Under the particular circumstances of the instant cases, we see no reason to indulge the fiction that the McConnell case never really...