Case Title: The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Smith

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-07-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and Dan Ray
v. Honorable Kim M. SMITH and Anna F. Smith

97-415                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered July 7, 1997


1.   Prohibition, writ of -- when appropriate -- review. -- A writ of
     prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is appropriate only
     when the lower court is wholly without jurisdiction; when
     considering the propriety of issuing the writ, the supreme
     court's review of jurisdiction is limited to the pleadings;
     where the encroachment on workers' compensation jurisdiction
     is clear, a writ of prohibition is warranted.

2.   Workers' compensation -- compensable injury -- physical injury must precede
     mental injury -- no remedy for respondent's alleged extreme mental anguish.
     -- The supreme court could not construe respondent's claims of
     misrepresentation and extreme mental anguish to be an
     aggravation of an initial, compensable injury suffered by her
     husband; Ark. Code Ann.  11-9-102(5) and 11-9-113(a)(1)
     (Repl. 1996) set out a requirement that a physical injury
     precede and cause a mental injury for the mental injury to be
     compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act; the court
     concluded that under the Workers' Compensation Act, there was
     no remedy for respondent's alleged extreme mental anguish.

3.   Workers' compensation -- respondent's action based on nonphysical injury -
     - claims for misrepresentation and outrage not barred by exclusive-remedy
     provisions of Act -- writ denied. -- Because respondent's action was
     manifestly premised on a nonphysical injury, and because her
     injury was not compensable and was beyond the scope of
     coverage of the Workers' Compensation Act, the supreme court
     held that her claims for misrepresentation and outrage were
     not barred by the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers'
     Compensation Act; the supreme court denied a writ of
     prohibition on this point.

4.   Election of remedies -- general rule. -- The general rule concerning
     election of remedies is that where a party has a right to
     choose one of two or more appropriate but inconsistent
     remedies and, with full knowledge of all the facts and of his
     rights, makes a deliberate choice of one, then he is bound by
     his election and cannot resort to the other remedy. 

5.   Election of remedies -- respondent's action not barred by election of
     remedies -- writ denied. -- Although an election of remedies would
     have barred respondent's action had it been shown that she
     either received or could have received compensation for her
     alleged injury under the Workers' Compensation Act, where
     respondent had no remedy under the Act, her claim could not be
     thwarted for election-of-remedy reasons; the supreme court
     deemed this ground for granting a writ of prohibition to be
     without merit.

     Petition for Writ of Prohibition; denied.
     Davis, Cox & Wright PLC, by: Don A. Taylor and David L.
McCune, for petitioners.
     Jeff Slaton, for respondents.

     Robert L. Brown, Justice.
     This is a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by
petitioners The Travelers Insurance Company, the workers'
compensation insurance carrier for Gerald Johnson Trucking Company,
and Dan Ray, who is employed by Travelers as a claims adjuster. 
The respondents are circuit judge Kim M. Smith and the claimant's
widow, Anna F. Smith.  We deny the petition.
     On September 30, 1996, respondent Anna F. Smith filed an
amended complaint against Travelers Insurance and Dan Ray seeking
damages for misrepresentation and the tort of outrage.  Anna Smith
alleged that her husband, Alva Smith, was killed in a one-vehicle
trucking accident in Washington County in the course of his
employment with Gerald Johnson Trucking Company.  After Alva
Smith's death, Anna Smith authorized Charles Farmer, Jr., a
representative of the Sisco Funeral Chapel, to arrange her
husband's funeral and handle matters with Travelers Insurance.
     The complaint alleged that although the Washington County
Coroner and the Arkansas State Police had determined that the cause
of Alva Smith's death was massive head trauma, Dan Ray represented
to Farmer that no workers' compensation benefits would be paid
until an autopsy had been performed.  It was further alleged that
Ray stated to Farmer that Travelers Insurance first had to
determine whether the true cause of Alva Smith's death was a heart
attack or other pre-existing condition.  Ray, according to the
allegations, never took steps to have the autopsy performed and
failed to authorize the embalming of Alva Smith's body.  Anna Smith
claimed that Ray made the following misrepresentations to her: (1)
that an autopsy was required; (2) that if Alva Smith had suffered
from a heart attack or other pre-existing condition immediately
prior to the accident, his death would not be compensable; and (3)
that he (Ray) was making efforts to obtain an autopsy.  Anna Smith
alleged that the misrepresentations were made for the purpose of
inducing her to refrain from embalming her husband's body and
proceeding with the funeral.  As a result, Anna Smith incurred
refrigeration costs, and, due to the delay in embalming, was unable
to have an open-casket funeral.  She claims that she experienced
severe and extreme mental anguish, which Ray knew would naturally
and probably result from his conduct. 
     Travelers Insurance and Ray answered and asserted
affirmatively that Anna Smith's claim was barred by the exclusive-
remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act or,
alternatively, by the fact that she accepted workers' compensation
benefits paid by Travelers Insurance on behalf of Gerald Johnson
Trucking Company and, thus, had elected her remedy.  The
petitioners next filed a "Motion to Dismiss and for Summary
Judgment," claiming again that Anna Smith's exclusive remedy lay
under the Workers' Compensation Act and that she had elected her
remedy by accepting death benefits in the amount of $32,910.
     The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and for summary
judgment.  In a letter opinion, the trial court reasoned that Anna
Smith was not seeking damages on the account of the death of her
husband and that the injuries she allegedly suffered did not arise
from Alva Smith's employment.  The court further noted that the
Workers' Compensation Act did not provide a remedy for her alleged
wrong and that her action was therefore not barred by the
exclusive-remedy provision.  The court also denied summary judgment
and, in doing so, ruled that genuine issues of material fact
existed as to the claims of misrepresentation and outrage. 
Travelers Insurance and Ray filed a "Motion for Additional Findings
and for Reconsideration," which was dismissed by the trial court. 
This petition for writ of prohibition followed.  

                       I. Exclusive Remedy
     Petitioners' first ground in support of prohibition is that
Anna Smith's lawsuit is at odds with the exclusive-remedy provision
of the Workers' Compensation Act.  See Ark. Code Ann.  11-9-105(a)
(Repl. 1996).
     We begin by addressing our standard of review.  A writ of
prohibition is an extraordinary writ that is appropriate only when
the lower court is wholly without jurisdiction.  Nucor Holding
Corp. v. Rinkines, 326 Ark. 217, 931 S.W.2d 426 (1996); West
Memphis Sch. Dist. No. 4 v. Circuit Court, 316 Ark. 290,