WPC # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 0l@ 0D 0J 0D: 0T~ 0^ 0h0 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0dU>uB)DC AMU*lWv~sv D3 B 0@ AQT 0Dk D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ ?@ABCDEFӀRSzz!3|xS((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  (3$ !  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G<  9p`(Arial !  ""   YYY FILED"X October25,1996CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk  !   $       Ofthisamount,counselforCastlemanreceivedafeeofonethirdorapproximately$337,000.  !   $       Thestatutehasbeenamendedsincethefilingofthislawsuitto, interalia ,forbidcompensationbenefitsforaninjuryordeathduetoillegaldrugs.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ++++'dxd d("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .   \RA'\` ` pX\RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATJACKSON@ _______________________________________________________  ) BILLYCASTLEMAN,  ) MadisonCountyCircuitCourt ) No.C90116̀Plaintiff/Appellant. ) )VS. ) C.A.NO.02A019508CV00185R!# A1-j|)`  `@R ) ROSSENGINEERING,INC.,  ) )̀Defendant/Appellee. ) )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheCircuitCourtofMadisonCountyatJackson. HonorableFranklinMurchison,Judge T.RobertHill , RandallJ.Phillips ,HILLBOREN,P.C.,Jackson,TennesseeAttorneysforPlaintiff/Appellant. WilliamB.Walk,Jr. ,THEHARDISONLAWFIRM,P.C.,Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforPlaintiff/Appellee.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED FARMER,J.HIGHERS,J. :(Concurs) LILLARD,J. :(Concurs)  ` ` X Inthisappeal,weareaskedtoconsiderwhetheranemployersworkerscompensationcarrierisentitledtobereimbursed,forbenefitspaidtoanemployee,fromthe netrecoveryobtainedbytheemployeeinathirdpartytortaction,ifthejudgmentattributesaportionofthefaultfortheemployeesinjuriestotheemployer.Wenotethatthiscasecomestousinaratheruniqueposture,havingbeendecidedafter McIntyrev.Balentine ,833S.W.2d52(Tenn.1992),whereinthedoctrineofcomparativefaultwasadoptedbyoursupremecourt,butpriortothatcourtsdecisionin Ridingsv.RalphM.ParsonsCo. ,914S.W.2d79(Tenn.1996).In Ridings ,theplaintiffemployeepursuedathirdpartyactionforallegedinjuriessustainedinthecourseandscopeofemployment.Thedefendantsattemptedtoasserttheemployersnegligenceasanaffirmativedefense. Ridings ,914S.W.2dat80. Ridings heldthatnofaultcouldbeattributedtotheemployer,reasoningthatthere isawelldefinedpublicpolicyfornotimposingtortliabilityontheemployer. Id .at83. Ridings concludedthattheemployeesrighttorecoveronallegationsofnegligenceandstrictliabilitywouldbeassessedwithoutreferencetotheemployersconduct. Id .at84. Inthepresentcase,thetrialcourtgrantedtheappellees,HartfordInsuranceCompany(Hartford), MotiontoDirectDistributionofSubrogationFunds,allowingreimbursementfortheentireamountofbenefitspaidtotheemployee,BillyCastleman(Castleman),Appellant,withoutanyconsiderationofthefaultofhisemployer.Thesoleissueonappealiswhetherthetrialcourterredindoingso.Forreasonshereinaftersetforth,weaffirm. Theunderlyingfactsofthiscasemaybesummarizedasfollows:OnNovember3,1989,Castlemansustainedanonthejobinjurywhileemployedasanelectricianshelper.Hisemployer,JackCastlemand/b/aJ.E.C.ElectricCompany,asubcontractor,didnotcarryworkerscompensationinsurance.Thegeneralcontractor,SECO/WarwickCorporation,throughHartford,paidbenefitstoCastlemantotalingapproximately$100,000.InApril1990,CastlemanfiledathirdpartyactionagainstRossEngineering,Inc.andKaizerAluminumandChemicalCorporation.Hartfordfiledapetitiontointerveneandnoticeofsubrogationlien.AjurytrialresultedinadeterminationthatCastlemanstotaldamageswere$1.5million.Thejuryattributed68%ofthefaulttoRossEngineering,16%toJ.E.C.Electricand16%toCastleman.CastlemanwasawardedajudgmentagainstRossEngineeringandthereafterexecutedasatisfactionofjudgmentacknowledginghisreceiptfromRossof$1,021,134.40. $   ׀ThepartiesdisputedtheexactamountdueHartfordandagreedtoplace$100,000inanescrowaccountpendingalaterrulingfromthetrialcourt. Thetrialcourtorderedthedisbursementofthesubrogationfundsasfollows:onethirdor$33,333wasawardedasattorneysfees,with$10,000goingtocounselforHartfordandtheremaindertoCastlemanandhisattorney.Thecourtmadenoallocationoffaultfortheemployer.ThepartieshadpreviouslyagreedtoequallydividesuitexpensesandHartfordwasorderedtopay$8,178toCastlemanrepresentingitsshareofexpenses.Allinall,Hartfordreceived$68,489andCastleman,$31,511. Onappeal,itisCastlemanscontentionthatHartfordisnotentitledtoanyofthesubrogationfundsbecausehehasnotbeen madewhole,evenifheretainstheentiresubrogationamountinadditiontotheamountofthejudgment.Heassertsthatifnotforhisemployersimmunity,hewouldhavebeenentitledtoanadditional$240,000representingthe16%offaultattributabletoJ.E.C.Electric,foratotalawardof$1,260,000.Thus,Castlemanassertsthata windfallhasbeencreatedinfavorofHartfordintheamountof$140,000.Castlemanarguesthat anyconsiderationofHartfordsclaimedsubrogationmusttakeintoaccountthefaultofJ.E.C.ElectrictopreventanunjustwindfalltoHartfordandanunfairburdenon[him]. Conversely,HartfordtakesthepositionthatAppellantisattemptingtoreapthebenefitsofboththeWorkersCompensationActandourcommonlawtortsystemandthe traditionaltorttheoriesofsubrogation.HartfordcontendsthatTennesseesworkerscompensationlawisnotfaultbasedandthat,whenCastlemanwasinjured,benefitswereprovidedhimirrespectiveofanyfaultofhisownincontributingtohisinjuries.Hartfordreasonsthatiftheemployeeisallowedtooffsetthenegligenceofhisemployerinathirdpartyaction,thentheemployershouldbeallowedtoconsidertheemployeesfaultindeterminingwhethertoprovidetheemployeewithcompensationbenefits. Oursupremecourtin Clantonv.CainSloanCo. ,677S.W.2d441(Tenn.1984),recognizedthat:8 [T]heWorkersCompensationLawisacomprehensiveschemeenactedtoprovideacertainandexpeditiousremedyforinjuredemployees.Itreflectsacarefulbalancingoftheinterestofemployerandemployee.... [t]heActcreatesa duty ontheemployertocompensateemployeesforworkrelatedinjuries...anda right ontheemployeetoreceivesuchcompensation. Clanton ,677S.W.2dat444(quoting Framptonv.CentralIndianaGasCo. ,297N.E.2d425,427(Ind.1973)). In99C.J.S. WorkersCompensation 10(1958),itisstated: [i]ngeneral,theliabilityandtherighttorecoverunderthecompensationactshavenoreferencetofault,wrongdoing,tort,ornegligence,whetheronthepartofemployer,hisservantsoragents,theinjuredemployee,fellowservants,orthirdpersons.Ourstatelegislaturehaschosentolimitapplicationoftheforegoingprincipalandprecludetherecoveryofcompensationbenefits foraninjuryordeathduetotheemployeeswillfulmisconductorintentionalselfinflictedinjury,orduetointoxication,orwillfulfailureorrefusaltouseasafetyapplianceorperformadutyrequiredbylaw.T.C.A.506110(a). %   ׀Moreover,anemployeemaymaintainacommonlawtortactionagainsttheemployerifitisshownthattheemployeractuallyintendedtoinjuretheemployee. E.g.,Gonzalesv.AlmanConstr.Co. ,857S.W.2d42,48(Tenn.App.1993).Otherwise,asexpressedbyoursupremecourtin LennonCo.v.Ridge ,412S.W.2d638(Tenn.1967),inthefieldofworkmenscompensationinsurance, [l]iabilityisimposedupontheemployerwithoutregardtothefaultofeitherparty.... LennonCo. ,412S.W.2dat641. T.C.A.506112states,ashererelevant:8  Actionsagainstthirdpersons .(a)WhentheinjuryordeathforwhichcompensationispayableundertheWorkersCompensationLawwascausedundercircumstancescreatingalegalliabilityagainstsomepersonotherthantheemployertopaydamages,theinjuredworker,orsuchinjuredworkersdependents,shallhavetherighttotakecompensationundersuchlaw,andsuchinjuredworker,orthosetowhomsuchinjuredworkersrightofactionsurvivesatlaw,maypursuesuchinjuredworkersortheirremedybyproperactioninacourtofcompetentjurisdictionagainstsuchotherperson.8  ....8  (c)(1)Ineventofsuchrecoveryagainstsuchthirdpersonbytheworker,orbythosetowhomsuchworkersrightofactionsurvives,byjudgment,settlementorotherwise,andtheemployersmaximumliabilityforworkerscompensationunderthischapterhasbeenfullyorpartiallypaidanddischarged,theemployershallhaveasubrogationlienthereforagainstsuchrecovery,andtheemployermayinterveneinanyactiontoprotectandenforcesuchlien.8  (2)Intheeventthenetrecoverybytheworker,orbythosetowhomsuchworkersrightofactionsurvives,exceedstheamountpaidbytheemployer,andtheemployerhasnot,atthetime,paidanddischargedtheemployersfullmaximumliabilityforworkerscompensationunderthischapter,theemployershallbeentitledtoacreditontheemployersfutureliability,asitaccrues,totheextentthenetrecoverycollectedexceedstheamountpaidbytheemployer.In Beamv.MarylandCasualtyCo. ,477S.W.2d510(Tenn.1972),oursupremecourtexpresslyheldthatthelegislativeintentbehindtheenactmentofT.C.A.50914(nowcodifiedas506112) istoreimburseanemployerforpaymentsmadeunderaWorkmensCompensationawardfromthenetrecoveryobtainedbytheemployee...totheextentof[the]employerstotalobligationundertheCompensationAct. Beam ,477S.W.2dat513. UndertheWorkersCompensationAct,asinterpretedbyoursupremecourt,theemployerisentitledtoreimbursementfromtheemployeesnetrecoveryinathirdpartytortactiontotheextentofhis totalobligationundertheAct.Wedonotfindsuchinterpretationaffectedbythedecisionof McIntyrev.Balentine andtheadoptionofcomparativefaultprinciples.Clearly,Tennesseesworkerscompensationschemeisnotfaultbased,allowinganemployeecompensationfromhisemployerforworkrelatedinjuriesirrespectiveofhisorhisemployersfault,withcertainexceptions,whichdonotapplyhere.Although McIntyre wasdecidedin1992,theActhasnotbeenchanged.TheActfailstospeakintermsofwhetheranemployeehasbeen madewholepriortoanyrecoverybytheemployerinathirdpartyaction.TheAct,whichoperatessolelybylegislativemandate,isentirelyseparatefromourcommonlawtortsystemandrelatedtheoriesofsubrogationwhichallowaninsurerarightofsubrogationafteraninsuredhasbeen madewhole. See,e.g.,Wimberlyv.AmericanCasualtyCo. ,584S.W.2d200,203(Tenn.1979).Weagreewiththeappelleethatthesetwotheoriesofrecoverycannotbeintertwinedforproperapplicationofeither.Resolutionoftheissuebeforeusiswithintheconfinesoftheworkerscompensationlawsofourstate,whichweconcludeallowanemployertorecouphis totalobligationfromtheemployeeintheeventofathirdpartyrecovery,irrespectiveoftheemployersfaultincontributingtotheemployeesinjuries.We,therefore,concludethatthetrialcourtcorrectlydisbursedthesubrogationfundswithoutconsideringthefaultofCastlemansemployer. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthiscauseremandedforanyfurtherproceedingsherewithconsistent.CostsareassessedagainstBillyCastleman,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.` ` X ________________________________ FARMER,J.______________________________HIGHERS,J.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)