Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Seattle-First National Bank (In Re North Side Lumber Co.)

83 B.R. 735, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 2232, 1987 WL 45129
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 28, 1987
DocketBAP No. OR 86-1677-AsMeE, Bankruptcy No. 385-00316, Adv. No. 85-0521
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 83 B.R. 735 (Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Seattle-First National Bank (In Re North Side Lumber Co.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Seattle-First National Bank (In Re North Side Lumber Co.), 83 B.R. 735, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 2232, 1987 WL 45129 (bap9 1987).

Opinion

OPINION

ASHLAND, Bankruptcy Judge.

Industrial Indemnity Company appeals from an order determining that its lien for unpaid workers compensation insurance premiums asserted against property of the debtor North Side Lumber Company is invalid. We affirm.

FACTS

In July 1983 Industrial Indemnity entered into an agreement with North Side Lumber to provide workers compensation insurance coverage for the policy year July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984. Under the policy 70% of the premium was deferred while 30% was paid in eleven monthly installments. In July 1984 a policy for 1984-85 was executed which provided for a deferral of 40% of the premium until nine months after the close of the policy year. The other 60% was to be paid during the term of the policy.

Moreover, as typical with most workers compensation insurance plans the policies had a retrospective premium endorsement. The retrospective endorsement requires that the insured pay a premium based on an estimated standard premium which is adjusted six to nine months after the close of the policy year to reflect actual losses of the insured. The initial premium is adjusted up or down to reflect actual losses with adjustments lasting as long as five years after the policy expires. The retrospective premiums are an incentive for employers to provide safe work areas and thereby pay a lower premium for workers compensation coverage.

In August 1984 Industrial conducted a preliminary audit of North Side’s losses for the 1983-84 policy year. The losses were unexpectedly high resulting in a larger retrospective premium adjustment. In September 1984 North Side agreed to make monthly payments of $30,783 in order to decrease the amount owed on the deferred premium. North Side failed to pay the premium billed on November 28, 1984.

On January 28, 1985 Industrial sent a formal notice of default and written demand for payment to North Side. The demand was sent by certified mail return receipt requested and was for the entire accelerated balance for both policy years, $586,584.42. The demand was received by North Side on January 31, 1985. North Side filed a Chapter 11 petition on the same day.

On April 3, 1985 Industrial moved for relief from the automatic stay to permit filing of a workers compensation insurer’s lien pursuant to ORS 656.564 upon property of the debtor. The court granted Industrial permission to file the lien which was filed on April 23, 1985, for $327,387.23. (A final field audit disclosed less was actually due.) The order provided that Industrial would not enhance its position under §§ 362(b) and 546(b), and that the validity, *737 priority, and amount of the lien would be determined at a later date. On October 23, 1985 Industrial was granted further relief from the stay for the limited purpose of filing a complaint to foreclose its lien within the time required by ORS 656.564(4).

Trial was held on debtor’s complaint to determine the validity and extent of Industrial’s asserted lien. The court held that Industrial had an invalid post-petition lien. Under ORS 656.564 the lien was not created until filed which occurred after the bankruptcy petition was filed. The court rested its decision on the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of similar language in the Oregon’s mechanic’s lien statute. In Phillips v. Graves, 139 Or. 336, 9 P.2d 490 (1932), the Oregon court held that a mechanic’s lien is not created until actually filed. The bankruptcy court also held that the relation back doctrine of § 546(b) could not be invoked because a lien can only relate back to its date of creation which here occurred post-petition and was stayed by the provisions of § 362. In re North Side Lumber Company, 59 B.R. 917 (Bankr.D.Or.1986).

Industrial filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied and from which Industrial timely appealed. The defendants Barclays American/Business Credit, Inc., Leasco of Washington, Inc., Seattle First National, and United Pacific Reliance Company, all whom assert superior security interests, have filed answering briefs. The Associated General Contractors of Amer-ica, Inc., Oregon-Columbia Chapter has filed an amicus curiae brief questioning the court’s interpretation of Oregon’s mechanic’s lien law.

ISSUE

Whether Industrial Indemnity has an invalid post-petition lien for unpaid workers compensation insurance premiums.

DISCUSSION

The issue on appeal is a question of law reviewed de novo. In re Pizza of Hawaii, Inc., 761 F.2d 1374 (9th Cir.1985). The resolution of the issue involves both the Bankruptcy Code and state law. When a decision turns upon applicable state law, and the state’s highest court has not adjudicated the issue, the court must make a reasonable determination, based upon recognized sources, as to the result that the highest state court would reach if it were deciding the issue. Molsbergen v. United States, 757 F.2d 1016, 1020 (9th Cir.1985), cert. dismissed, 473 U.S. 934, 106 S.Ct. 30, 87 L.Ed.2d 706.

The workers compensation insurer’s lien asserted by Industrial is provided for at ORS 656.564:

(1) A lien is hereby created in favor of the insurer upon all real property within this state and upon any structure or improvement thereon and upon any mine, lode, deposit, mining claim, or any road, tramway, trail, flume, ditch, pipeline, building, or other structure or equipment on or pertaining thereto, upon which labor is performed by the workers or any employer subject to ORS 656.001 to 656.-794 in a sum equal to the amount at any time due from such employer to the insurer on account of labor performed thereon by the workers of such employer, together with interest and penalty. (3) In order to avail itself of the lien created by this section, the insurer shall, within 60 days after the employer is in default, ..., file with the county clerk of the county within which such property is then situated a statement in writing describing the property upon which a lien is claimed and stating the amount of the lien claimed by the insured....

Suit to foreclose the lien must be commenced within six months of the filing of the statement. ORS 656.564(4).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 B.R. 735, 1987 Bankr. LEXIS 2232, 1987 WL 45129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-indemnity-co-v-seattle-first-national-bank-in-re-north-side-bap9-1987.