Workers Comp. Fund v. Argonaut Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 20100211.,20100211.
• Citation: 692 Utah Adv. Rep. 5,266 P.3d 792,2011 UT 61
• Parties: WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND, Iverson Steel and Erection Company, and Wadman Corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellee, v. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

2011 UT 61

266 P.3d 792

692 Utah Adv. Rep. 5

WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND, Iverson Steel and Erection Company, and Wadman Corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellee,

v.ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 20100211.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Oct. 4, 2011.Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 2011.

James R. Black, Dennis V. Lloyd, Matthew J. Black, Salt Lake City, for appellee.

Theodore E. Kanell, Daniel E. Young, Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Justice PARRISH, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut) failed to file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court's final judgment, as required by rule 4(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Instead, Argonaut filed a motion captioned “objection to judgment.” Argonaut then filed its notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court's order disposing of that motion. Argonaut asks us to construe its postjudgment “objection to judgment” as a motion under rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which would extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to thirty days after the district court ruled on the “objection to judgment.” Alternatively, Argonaut asks us to construe its motion as a rule 60(b) motion pursuant to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which would give us jurisdiction to consider whether the district court erred in denying that motion. Because Argonaut's “objection to judgment” cannot be construed as either a rule 59 or rule 60(b) motion, its appeal was untimely and we lack jurisdiction to consider its appeal.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 This case comes to us on appeal after remand. The underlying dispute in this case revolves around the issue of who was contractually obligated to pay workers' compensation benefits to Corey Searle. In Workers' Compensation Fund v. Wadman Corporation, we held that Argonaut was liable for Mr. Searle's workers' compensation benefits because Mr. Searle was Wadman Corporation's statutory employee, and the policy between Argonaut and Wadman “require[d] that Argonaut pay workers' compensation insurance benefits for all of Wadman's employees.” 2009 UT 18, ¶ 40, 210 P.3d 277. We therefore remanded the case to the district court “for action consistent with [our] opinion.” Id. ¶ 41.

¶ 3 Because Workers' Compensation Fund (WCF) had voluntarily paid Mr. Searle's workers compensation benefits, the district court on remand determined the amount of damages that Argonaut owed to WCF. To facilitate this determination, WCF sent Argonaut and the district court a proposed judgment. The proposed judgment was in the amount of the benefits that WCF had paid to Mr. Searle, as well as prejudgment interest and administrative costs.

¶ 4 Argonaut filed an objection to the proposed judgment and requested a hearing on the remaining issues. In its objection, Argonaut argued that (1) the relevant contracts of insurance had never been interpreted by the trial court, (2) the Utah Labor Commission should determine the statutory employer issue, (3) Wadman filed a motion that the trial court had found moot before the appeal, and (4) the Utah Supreme Court did not determine whether Mr. Searle's injury was covered by Argonaut's workers' compensation insurance policy with Wadman.

¶ 5 The district court overruled Argonaut's objection. It held that we had previously decided in Wadman the issues that Argonaut raised. It further held that the proposed judgment submitted by WCF reflected our decision. The district court, however, asked that WCF submit a revised version of the judgment that excluded the award of taxable costs.

¶ 6 On December 18, 2009, WCF sent a revised judgment to the court. Argonaut again filed an objection to the proposed judgment in which it argued that the district court was required to hold a hearing regarding coverage issues and that the judgment should be against Wadman rather than Argonaut. The district court again overruled Argonaut's objection. On January 11, 2010, the court entered judgment requiring that Argonaut pay to WCF the amount of workers' compensation benefits that WCF had paid to Mr. Searle, together with prejudgment interest and administrative costs.

¶ 7 On January 14, 2010, three days after judgment had been entered, Argonaut filed yet another “objection to judgment.” For the first time, Argonaut argued that the judgment should not include administrative costs or prejudgment interest and that the Utah Labor Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the amount of damages to which WCF was entitled. Argonaut's motion did not include a supportive memorandum nor did it cite to any legal authority. On February 10, 2010, the district court again overruled Argonaut's objection. It held that the judgment was properly entered and that it was inappropriate for Argonaut to introduce new issues after the court had denied Argonaut's prior objections and entered judgment. On March 8, 2010, Argonaut filed its notice of appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶ 8 Argonaut requests that we reverse or vacate the district court's judgment requiring that it reimburse WCF for the workers' compensation benefits WCF paid to Mr. Searle. Argonaut raises four arguments in support of its request. First, it argues that the district court violated its due process rights by failing to hold a hearing on the issue of damages. Second, it claims that the district court erred when it did not enter judgment against Wadman. Third, it argues that the district court erred when it refused to take evidence of the insurance policy between Wadman and Argonaut. Finally, Argonaut claims that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the judgment because the Utah Labor Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the amount of benefits owed to Mr. Searle.¹ In response, WCF argues that we lack jurisdiction to hear Argonaut's appeal because Argonaut's notice of appeal was untimely. Because we agree that Argonaut did not file a timely notice of appeal, we are without jurisdiction to address the issues Argonaut raises and therefore dismiss this appeal.

I. ARGONAUT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS UNTIMELY

¶ 9 As a threshold matter, we address whether we have jurisdiction over Argonaut's appeal. WCF argues that we lack jurisdiction because Argonaut's appeal was untimely. Argonaut concedes that it did not file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the district court's January 11 judgment, but asserts that its “objection to judgment” constituted a rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment and therefore tolled the time for appeal. It reasons that because it filed its appeal within thirty days of the entry of the judgment disposing of its objection, its appeal was timely. Alternatively, Argonaut argues that the district court should have construed its “objection to judgment” as a rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment and that we have jurisdiction to determine whether the district court erred in denying that motion. We hold that Argonaut's “objection to judgment” cannot be construed as either a rule 59 motion or as a rule 60(b) motion. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.²

¶ 10 Rule 4(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “[i]n a case in which an appeal is permitted as a matter of right [,] ... the notice of appeal ... shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within thirty days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” “It is axiomatic in this jurisdiction that failure to timely perfect an appeal is a jurisdictional failure requiring dismissal of the appeal.” Prowswood, Inc. v. Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 676 P.2d 952, 955 (Utah 1984), superseded on other grounds by procedural rule, Utah R.App. P. 3, as recognized in Clark v. Archer, 2010 UT 57, ¶ 14, 242 P.3d 758. The time for filing a notice of appeal, however, is “extended by certain motions,” including, among others, “a motion to alter or amend the judgment [filed] under rule 59 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.” Utah R.App. P. 4(b)(1)(c). “If a party timely files in the trial court any” of the motions specified by rule 4(b), “the time for all parties to appeal from the judgment runs from the entry of the order disposing of the motion.” Id. 4(b)(1). But rule 4(b) does not list an “objection to judgment” as one of the motions that extend the time for appeal. And Argonaut does not contend that an “objection to judgment” extends the time for appeal under this rule. Instead, Argonaut argues that its “objection to judgment” was, in substance, a rule 59 motion and that we should construe it as such. We refuse to do so.

¶ 11 In Gillett v. Price, 2006 UT 24, 135 P.3d 861, we faced a similar question. The petitioners in Gillett argued that their “motion to reconsider was in substance a [rule 59] motion to alter or amend the judgment ... and therefore tolled the time for appeal.” Id. ¶ 7. We rejected the petitioners' argument, holding that when a party seeks relief from a judgment, it must consult the rules “to determine whether relief exists, and if so, direct the court to the specific relief available.” Id. ¶ 8. We reasoned that “the form of a motion does matter” when determining whether the motion tolls the time for appeal “because it directs the court and litigants to the specific, and available, relief sought.” Id. We stated that “[p]arties can no longer leave this task to the court by filing so-called motions to reconsider,” or similarly titled motions, “and relying upon district courts to construe the motions within the rules.” Id. We therefore held that “post judgment motions to reconsider and other similarly titled motions will not toll the time for appeal.” Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis added).

¶ 12 As was the case in Gillett, Argonaut's “objection to judgment” is not recognized by the rules of appellate procedure as a motion that extends the time for appeal.³ Argonaut contends that it filed a rule 59 motion. But Argonaut's motion was not captioned as a rule 59 motion, it did not cite...