Maryland Casualty Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Also decided on this docket: La., April 15, 1879 31 La. 389; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., January 30, 1980 380 So. 2d 201; La. Ct. App. 4th Cir., May 18, 1976 332 So. 2d 509; La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., April 5, 1950 45 So. 2d 902
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, 213 So. 2d 72 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968).
Cited by
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 224 So. 2d 465 La. 1969
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cowan 219 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 215 So. 2d 123 La. 1968
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 194 So. 2d 204
- Winford v. Bullock 210 La. 301
- United States Casualty Co. v. Butler 151 So. 2d 136
Opinion text
ELLIS, Judge. This is a contest between a general and special workmen’s compensation insurer, to see who should ultimately pay the claim of an injured employee. This case was previously before us on an exception, at which time we decided the main point and remanded it for trial on the merits. See Maryland Casualty Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 194 So.2d 204 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967). In that decision, we held that the two insurers should share the loss equally. On the trial, the district judge, pursuant to the instructions contained in the above opinion, rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $4,-062.18, one half of the amounts expended by plaintiff in weekly compensation payments, medical expenses and a lump sum compromise settlement. From that judgment,'defendant appealed. The first specification of error relates to the point already decided by us in our prior opinion, to which reference is made for a full discussion of the matter. Defendant also claims that plaintiff can not demand indemnification for that part of the amount which was paid out in the compromise settlement, citing the case of Winford v. Bulloch, 210 La. 301 , 26 So.2d 822 (1946). That case held that an employer who compromised a judgment against him rather than appeal it could not demand indemnification from his negligent employee who was not consulted about the settlement. In this case, however, the compromise was Court approved, and was reflected in a judgment, signed by a judge, who, under *73 the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is required to discuss the settlement with the parties thereto, and not to approve it unless he finds it to be fair and equitable. R.S. 23:1271 et seq. In addition, we find that the record amply supports the reasonableness of the settlement, and that plaintiff has satisfied the burden of proof imposed on him by United States Casualty Co. v. Butler, 151 So.2d 136 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1963). The judgment appealed from is affirmed at defendant’s cost. Affirmed.