 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Home Assurance Co. v. Bry2/27/2004
DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Introduction and Background
The Court file in this matter was brought to my attention by my hearing examiner on account of a discovery dispute. After reviewing the file, I note a more fundamental issue regarding jurisdiction.
The petition in this case was filed by the insurer. As I read the petition, the insurer has denied liability for a claim filed by the respondent Mary Bry (hereinafter claimant) but is further investigating the claim. Citing claimant's "non-cooperation" with its further investigation, the insurer requests the Court to order the claimant to cooperate and to ultimately determine its liability for her claim.
On its face, the petition is a "pre-emptive strike" of the same sort condemned in Champion International Corp. v. Brennan, WCC No. 9504-7269 (June 13, 1995); Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Mares, WCC No. 9707-7782, Order Dismissing Petition (September 19, 1997); and Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 1998 MTWCC 56. In the cited cases, I held that a cause of action for benefits belongs to the claimant and the insurer cannot bring a declaratory judgment action which in effect forces the claimant to adjudicate her claim.
In Brennan I dismissed an insurer's petition seeking a determination that the claimant was not entitled to further benefits: at the time of the petition the insurer was not paying benefits and denied liability for any further benefits. In dismissing the petition, I held:
The cause of action in this case belongs to the claimant, not to the insurer. It is he who, under the Workers' Compensation Act, may be entitled to benefits for work-related injuries. Thus, the insurer's petition is one for declaratory judgment. "The purpose of declaratory relief is to liquidate uncertainties and controversies which might result in future litigation and to adjudicate rights of parties who have not otherwise been given an opportunity to have those rights determined." In re Dewar, 169 Mont. 437, 444, 548 P.2d 155 (1976) (emphasis added). Courts are not required to entertain every action for declaratory judgment. Even though all of the necessary elements of jurisdiction exist, the Court may, in its sound discretion, dismiss the action. (Brisendine v. Montana Department of Commerce), 253 Mont. 361, 364, 833 P.2d 1019 (1992).
Brennan at 2 (quoted at 2 in Mares).
In Mares the insurer sought a determination that it was not liable for the claimant's current medical and psychological condition. As in Brennan, the insurer was not paying the benefits because it disputed its liability for them. Citing Brennan, I dismissed the petition.
In Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. v. Shana Behr, the claimant had allegedly waived her entitlement to workers' compensation benefits and had brought a tort action against her employer. The employer's insurer then petitioned the Court requesting a determination as to whether the claimant could waive her claim for compensation. 1998 MTWCC 56, 2. The claimant replied that she was not seeking workers' compensation benefits and expressly stated that she withdrew and waived her claim. Id. at 3. As in Brennan and Mares, I dismissed, holding that an insurer cannot use a declaratory judgment action to force a claimant to litigate a potential claim for benefits.
The petition in this case was filed on August 23, 2002, by the insurer against the claimant. The claimant has represented herself throughout these proceedings.
The petition alleges that the claimant filed a claim for a low-back injury occurring on or about July 23, 2001, but further alleges the claimant had at leas
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|