Chaplin v. Bruce

57 F.R.D. 487, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10760
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma
DecidedDecember 12, 1972
DocketCiv. No. 72-563
StatusPublished

This text of 57 F.R.D. 487 (Chaplin v. Bruce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chaplin v. Bruce, 57 F.R.D. 487, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10760 (W.D. Okla. 1972).

Opinion

ORDER

DAUGHERTY, District Judge.

Defendant Bruce Trucking Company by Motion seeks to join United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company herein as an additional party plaintiff claiming that it is subrogated as a matter of Oklahoma law to a portion of Plaintiff’s action by reason of payments made to Plaintiff under a workmen’s compensation insurance policy. Plaintiff opposes said Motion on the ground that recent Oklahoma decisions have ruled that the anti-assignment portion of 12 Okl.St.Ann. § 221 prohibits action by [488]*488an insurer-subrogee against the injured party’s tortfeasor with respect to medical payments under automobile policies.1 It is clear that these cases are inapplicable to the case at bar. They apply by their own terms to medical pay provisions in automobile liability policies, not workmen’s compensation policies. Moreover, there is direct statutory authority for subrogation of a workmen’s compensation insurer, 85 Okl.St.Ann. § 44(a), and both the Oklahoma Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals have recognized the subrogation rights of such an insurer. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Leedy, 450 P.2d 898 (Okl.1969); White Motor Corporation v. Stewart, 465 F.2d 1085 (10 Cir. 1972); Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 268 F.2d 508 (10 Cir. 1959). Thus, there exists in the law of Oklahoma a substantive right under state law for a workmen’s compensation insurer to proceed against and recover its interest in its insured’s claim against the tortfeasor. 85 Okl.St.Ann. § 44(a) and cases cited above.2 Therefore, under Rule 17(a), F.R.Civ.P., such an insurer is a real party in interest and must be joined on timely motion of a Defendant. Gas Service Company v. Hunt, 183 F.2d 417 (10 Cir. 1950); Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al. v. Black & Veatch, 467 F.2d 1143 (10 Cir. 1972).

For reasons set out above, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company should be made an additional party plaintiff herein. The above-named Defendant may take appropriate action to cause said additional party plaintiff to be brought into this action. Upon this being accomplished, said additional party plaintiff herein shall either file its own Complaint herein or adopt the Complaint of the original Plaintiff. When either is accomplished Defendants will answer thereto within ten (10) days thereafter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gas Service Co. v. Hunt
183 F.2d 417 (Tenth Circuit, 1950)
Oklahoma Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ingle
1972 OK 18 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1972)
Blocker v. NATIONAL DISCOUNT INSURANCE COMPANY
1972 OK 16 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1972)
Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Krueger
1971 OK 82 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1971)
Travelers Insurance Company v. Leedy
1969 OK 34 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1969)
King v. Woodward
1972 OK 46 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
57 F.R.D. 487, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaplin-v-bruce-okwd-1972.