 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Interstate Insurance Co. v. G & H Service Center10/31/2005
JUDGMENT: Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
{ } Plaintiff-Appellant, American Interstate Insurance Company ("American Interstate"), appeals a judgment of the Shelby County Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellees, G & H Service Center ("G & H"), and Claude and Shon Britton. On Appeal, American Interstate asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to engage in a choice-of-law analysis in order to determine whether the Louisiana workers' compensation subrogation law governs in this case and that the trial court erred in holding that Ohio constitutional principles barred American Interstate's workers' compensation subrogation action. Finding that the trial court did err in failing to engage in a conflict-of-law analysis and that Louisiana substantive law, including its constitutional principals, applies, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
{ } In August of 2000, Claude Britton was employed by a Louisiana corporation, Ray Reich Trucking ("Ray Reich"), as a truck driver. Britton as well as his wife were residents of Louisiana at that time. While working for Ray Reich, Britton was seriously injured. Britton was using a pay phone located at G & H service station in Shelby County, Ohio, when a tow truck belonging to G & H was negligently left unattended and struck Britton.
{ } Following the accident, Britton filed for and received benefits under Louisiana's workers' compensation system for his injuries. Britton's benefits were paid by American Interstate pursuant to its Louisiana insurance contract with Ray Reich. Previously, American Interstate had contracted with Ray Reich, in Louisiana and in accordance with all applicable laws of the state of Louisiana, to insure Ray Reich for all work related injuries sustained by its employees. As a result of Britton's claim, American Interstate paid Britton seventy-six thousand three hundred dollars and eighty-nine cents in workers' compensation benefits.
{ } In August of 2002, American Interstate and Britton filed complaints in the Shelby County Court of Common Pleas against G & H and each other. American Interstate's complaint asserted that it had a subrogation right under Louisiana law to recover directly from G & H and/or Britton for those expenses American Interstate incurred on Britton's behalf. Britton's complaint asserted gross negligence claims against G & H. Additionally, Britton's complaint against American Interstate and Ray Reich requested that each affirmatively plead or waive any subrogation rights they may have. Answers were filed; however, in April of 2003, both American Interstate and Britton voluntarily dismissed their complaints.
{ } In March of 2004, American Interstate re-filed its action against Britton and G & H. Subsequently, Britton filed an answer and also filed a counter-claim against American Interstate challenging its subrogation rights. Britton's answer also included a cross-complaint against G & H for Britton's personal injury claim. Britton's underlying personal injury claim is not at issue in the appeal.
{ } In September and October of 2004, G & H and Britton, respectively, filed identical motions for summary judgment. In their motions for summary judgment, G & H and Britton asserted that American Interstate's right to subrogation was invalid under Ohio law. Essentially, G & H and Britton relied upon the Supreme Court's holding in Holeton v. Crouse Cartage Co. (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 115, that Ohio's workers' compensation subrogation statutes were unconstitutional. Additionally, G & H and Britton alleged American Interstate's case should be dismissed, arguing that becau
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|