I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 1 - CT - 0 0 1 7 9 - S CT L I BERT Y MUTU

AL I NS URAN CE COM

P AN Y v. RICHARD SHOEM

AKE ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 28/ 2010 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M AR CU S D. GOR DON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: NEW TON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: TARA S TRI CKLAND CLI F F ORD AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : DAVI D C
. DUNB AR NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - W OR KE RS ’ CO M P E NS AT I ON DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D, AND T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CI RC UI T CO UR T OF NE W T ON C OUNT Y I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A FFIRM E D - 05/ 02/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. U l t i m at el y, t his case con cerns the p roper procedu re by w hich a w orkers ’ compensa t i on i ns ur erm ay enf or ce a s ubr ogat i on cl ai m ar i s i ng underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode S ect i on 71 -3- 71
. R i chard S ho em ake w as i njur ed in A l abam a bu treceived w orkers ’
c o mp e n s a t i o n b e n e f

i t s f r o m L i b e r t y M u tu a l I n s u r a n c e Co mp a n y u n d e rM i s s i s s i p p i l a w. He b ro u g h t an d se ttl e d a th ird -p a rty a c tio n in A lab a m a sta te c o u rt a n d re im b u rse d L ib e rty M utual onl y t he amount i tw as ent i t l ed t o underA l abama l aw . L i ber t y M utual , w hi ch knew

### 2

o f b u t did n o t j o in o r in ter v e n e in th e A lab a m a law su it, the n su e d S h o e m a k e in th e C ir c u it C o u rto f N ew ton C o u n ty, seek ing fu ll reim b u rsem en t as all o w ed u n d er S ec ti o n 7 1 -3-7 1
. In gr ant i ng Shoem ake s um m ary j udgm ent , t he ci r cui tcour thel d t hatA l abama l aw appl i ed and f ur t herconcl uded thatre s ju d ica ta a n d Li b e r t y M u tu a l ’ s f a i l u r e t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e Al a b a ma
a c tio n b a rr e d L ib e rt y M u tu a l’ s c la im
. ¶2. T he C our tof

A ppeal s r ever s ed, hol di ng t hatM i s s i s s i ppi l aw governed the amount of L i ber t y M utual ’ s s ubr ogat i on cl ai m and thatL i ber ty M utual w as notr equi r ed t o i nt er vene i n the A l abam a act i on t o b ecom e enti t l ed t o rei m bu rs em ent unde r M i ssi ssi pp i l aw . B ecause
w e fin d th a t M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -7 1 re q u ire s a w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n in su re r to j oi n or i nt er vene i n a t hi r d- par t y act i on t o becom e ent i t l ed t o r ei m bur s ement , w e r ever s e the ju d g m e n t o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d a ff ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e c ir c u it c o u rt . F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S B E L OW ¶3. R i char d S hoemake i s a M i s s i s s i ppi re s i dentw ho w as empl oyed by Si m m ons W r ecke r Se r vi c e , a M i s s i s s i pp i c ompa ny . On Se pt e mber1 8, 2 00 3, whi l e i n t he c ou r s e a nd s c op e of hi s empl oym entw i t h Si m m ons , Shoemake w as i nj ur ed w hen a t r ai n c ol l i ded w i t h hi s t ruck i n M acon Count y, A l abama. Sho em ake f i l ed a w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cl ai m under M issi ssipp i l aw an d rec eive d $ 1 3 2 , 4 0 2
. 6 5 in b en efit s from S im m o n s’s insu ran ce ca rri er, L i bert y M utual Insur ance C om pan y. S ho em ake then b rough ta t hir d-party t ortact i on against th e tr a in o p e ra to r i n A la b a m a s ta te c o u rt . ¶ 4
. L ib e rty M u tu a l h a d n o tice o f th e a c tio n a t all re lev a n t ti m e s a n d w a s p e rio d ica lly advi s ed of

t he s t atus of

t he l i t i gat i on and medi at i on by Shoem ake’ s A l abama couns el but
m ade no a t t empt t o j oi n i n, i nt er vene i n, ori n a ny w ay part i ci pat e i n t he A l abama act i on. T he

### 3

act i on w as s et t l ed w i t houtt r i al on J une 27, 2007, f or$315, 000. A f

i nal or derdi s m i s s i ng t he act i on w i t h prej udi ce w as ent er ed by the A l abama cour ton J anuary 16, 2008. O utof t he
s et t l ement f

unds , Shoem ake r emi t t ed $82, 226. 84 t o L i ber t y M utual on D ece m ber12, 2008. L ib e rty M u tu a l su b se q u e n tly su e d S h o e m a k e in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f N e w to n C o u n ty o n A p ril 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , to re c o v e r a n a d d itio n a l $ 5 0 ,1 7 5 .8 1
. ¶5. L i ber t y M utual c l ai m ed t hat , unde rM i s s i s s i ppi w or ker s ’ c om pens at i on l aw , i t w as ent i t l ed t o r ecove ral l $132, 402. 65 i n c ompe ns at i on benef i t s i thad pai d t o Shoem ake, w i t hout sh aring the c o sts o f c o llec tio n . S h o e m a k e so u g h t su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, arg u ing that A laba m a’s “comm on funds” doct r i ne appl i ed t o t he A l abama t or tact i on, and as s uch, L i ber t y M utual
w as requir ed t o pay 35% of hi s at t or ney f

ees and a pr opor t i onal s har e of ot hercol l ect i on
cos t s . H e cl ai m ed that , af t erthes e had been deduct ed, Li ber t y M utual w as f ul l y r ei m bur s ed. M or eover , he ar gued thatt he di s m i s s al of t he A l abam a acti on w i t h pr ej udi ce pr ecl uded L i ber t y M utual f

r om r el i t i gat i ng t he choi ce- of
- l aw i s s ue and the amountof s ub r og a t i on i tw as
ow ed. T he ci r cui tcour tgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm entf orShoem ake, f

i ndi ng thatA l abama l aw g o v erne d, t hat Liberty M utual ’s cl ai m s had b een set t l ed b y the A l abam a act i on and w ere barr ed by re s ju d ica ta , and thatL i ber t y M utual ha d w ai ved i t s r i ghtt o have i t s s ubr ogat i on
c la im h e a rd b y fa ilin g to in te rv e n e in th e A la b a m a a c tio n . ¶ 6
. L ib e rty M u tu a l su c c e ss fu lly a p p e a led to th e M iss iss ip p i C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, w h ich h e ld t hat , undert he “s i gni f

i cantr el at i ons hi p” t es t , M i s s i s s i ppi l aw governed t he s ubr ogat i on
c la im
. 

### Libert

y Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shoemake , __So. 3d__, 2012 WL 1925646 ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2012). Fur t her , i thel d t hatSect i on 71- 3- 71di d notr equi r e L i ber t y M utual t o i nt er vene i n t he t hi r d- par t y act i on t o pur s ue s ubr ogat i on. W e agr ee that , as betw een Li ber t y M utual and

### 4

S h o e ma k e , M i s s i s s i p p i l a w d e f i n e s a n d g o v e r n s Li b e r t y M u tu a l ’ s s u b r o g a t i o n c l a i m. H o w e v e r, b e c a u se M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -7 1 re q u ire s a n e m p lo y e r o r in su re r to i nt er vene i n a thi r d- par t y act i on i n or dert o become e nt i t l ed t o r ei m bur s ement , w e r ever s e the ju d g m e n t o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d re in s ta te th e ju d g m e n t o f t h e c ir c u it c o u rt . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶7. W e r evi ew t he ci r cui tcour t ’ s gr antordeni al of s um m ary j udgm entundera de
n o v o s ta n d a rd
. E nter

gy Mis s . , I

nc. v. B urde tte G in C o. , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 5 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ). F urther, “w hethert he cir cuitcou rthad proper j uri sdicti o n to hear a part i cularm at t er i s a q u e s tio n o f l a w ,” w h ic h a ls o re q u ir e s a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w . I d . at 12 04- 05. DI S CU S S I ON ¶8
. W e beg i n by n ot i ng the a no mal ou s s i tua t i on i n t hi s c a s e . Sh oe make ’ s r e c e i pt of benef i t s , hi s r et ai ned r i ghtt o s ue a r es pons i bl e thi r d par t y, and Li ber t y M utual ’ s s ubr ogat i on cl ai m al l ar i s e outof

M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s w or ker s ’ com pens at i on s t atut e. H ow ever , once Shoemake
s u e d i n Al a b a ma , t h e c h o i c e - o f
- l a w q u e s t i o n wo u l d h a v e b e e n d e t e r mi n e d b y a n Al a b a ma
cour t , had Li ber t y M utual chose n t o j oi n or i nt er vene i n t hatact i on. W e w oul d not have ha d any oppor tuni t y t o det er m i ne w hatl aw appl i ed, had a se par at e M i s s i s s i ppi s t at e l aw s ui tnot been f i l ed. W e f

i nd no f aul tw i t h t he C our tof

A ppeal s ’ choi ce- of

- l aw anal ys i s as i tappl i es to th e M is s is s ip p i a c tio n . 

### In a Mis si ss ippiac ti on, whe rea Mi ss is sippi r es ide nt e mpl oyed by
aMi s s i s s ipp ic om

panye l e c t s t o r e c e i vec om pe ns at i onbe ne f

i t s un de r Mis si s s ipp il aw, regard less of w heth er the in juryo ccurred inano ther state, M ississipp i’s wo rkers’
com pens ation l aw gove rns thest at utor y subrogation right s of an em ploye r or ins ure r who has p aid b enefits to that w ork er.

### 5

¶9. H ow ever , t hi s cas e ca n be dec i ded w i t houtr eac hi ng a put at i ve conf l i ct - of
- l aw i s s ue. T od ay’s act i on , w hich s eeks t he enforcem ent of L i berty M utual ’s subroga t i on cl ai m , arose
so lely u n d e r M iss iss ip p i law . T h e p ro c e d u re b y w h ich a n em p lo y e r o r in su re r w h o h a s p a id
c o m p e n sa tio n b e n e fits c a n b e reim b u rse d o u t of d a m a g e s p a id b y a th ird p a rty is s e t o u t in M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 71- 3- 71, and the pr operi nt erpr et at i on of t hatpr ovi s i on r es ol ves th is d is p u te . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 71 ( R ev. 2011)
. The r eal que s t i on bef or e us t hen is w h e th e r a s tatu to ry su b ro g a tio n cla im u n d e r S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -7 1 m a y b e b ro u g h t in a se p a ra te act i on af t ert he conc l us i on of

a thi r d- par t y act i on i n w hi ch the i ns ur erhad not i ce butdi d not j oi n ori nt er vene. 1. D oes Sec t i on 71- 3- 71 r equi re an em pl oyer or i nsure r t o j oin or inte rv en e to b ec o m e e n ti tl ed to r eim b u rse m en t? ¶10. Fi r s t , w e mustdet er m i ne w hetherL i ber t y M utual s houl d have i nt er vened t o enf or ce its su b g ro g a tio n c laim . T h e su b ro g a tio n rig h ts o f a n e m p lo y e r o r in su re r w h o h a s p a id
w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s “do nots pr i ng f

r om a c ontr actual a gr eement. . . , butr ather
ar e conf err ed by Sect i on 71- 3- 71. ” Feder ated Mut . I ns. Co. v. McN

eal , 943 So. 2d 658, 661 (M i ss. 20 06 ). B ecause the r i gh tt o rei m bu rs em ent “exi st s by vi rtue of s t atute and m ustri se
orf al l s t r i ct l y as a mat t erof s t atut or y i nt erpr et at i on, ” w e mustf i r s tl ook t o t he pl ai n l anguage of Sect i on 71- 3- 71 t o det er m i ne w hetherL i ber t y M utual i s ent i t l ed t o re i m bur s ement w i t hout in te rv e n tio n . I

d . ( quot i ng Miss iss ip

p i Fo o d & F u e l W

o rk e rs ' Co m

p . T ru st v . T a c k e tt , 778 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 3 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 0 )). ¶11. Sect i on 71- 3- 71 per m i t s an i nj ur ed w or kerw ho r ece i ves c om pens at i on be nef i t s f r om hi s empl oyerori t s i ns ur ert o purs ue an ac t i on agai ns ta thi r d par t y and gi ves t he empl oyer

### Th e phrase “if suchemplo yer o r insurer joinin su ch act io n ”c anb e fairly readto 1 

### me an “ joi n or inte rv enein s uch a ction. ” The pre ce ding s ent enc e unambi guously give s an em ploye r or ins ure r the right

ei the r t o joi n or

int er venein t he third-party sui t. The Leg islature’s ch oice o f the wo rd “join ” to describe the emplo yer or carrier ’s particip ationin thesui t s hould not

be c onstrue d s tric tly a s me ani ng that joi nder al one, and not

int er vention as well, is th e on ly mean s bywh ich ane mplo yer o r carrier may b ecome en titled to re im burs em ent . Were cogni ze that j oinde r and int er vention aredistinc t conc ept s gove rne d bydifferen t p rocedural rules, altho ug h for our p urp oses theymayb e usedinterch ang eably in t he c as es disc uss ed bel ow. However , theplai n langua ge of Se ction 71- 3-71 – whi ch pr edat es theadoption of

our r ule s of ci vilproce dure– al lows either joinde r or

int er vention, and we affirm th at either w ill suffice to pro tect an in surer’s o r emplo yer’s rig ht to reimbursement. 6 ori ns ur ert he r i ghtt o ei t herj oi n or i nt er vene i n such a n act i on. I n tur n, t he s t atut e al l ow s t he empl oyerori ns ur ert o be f ul l y r ei m bur s ed f

oral l com pens at i on pai d out of the w or ker ’ s net
r ecove r y. H ow ever , t he l anguage of Secti on 71- 3- 71 cl ear l y condi t i ons t he empl oyeror i ns ur er ’ s r i ghtt o r ei m bur s ement upon t he empl oyerori ns ur er ’ s j oi nderori nt er vent i on i n t he t hi r d- par t y act i on: T he acc ept ance of

compensa t i on benef

i t s f r om ort he maki ng of

a cl ai m f

or compensa t i on agai ns tan empl oyer. . . s hal l notaf f ectt he ri gh t o f

t he empl oyee orhi s depende nt s t o s ue any otherpar t y atl aw f ors uch inj ur y or deat h, but t he e mpl oy e rorhi s i ns ur e rs ha l l be e nt i t l e d t o r e a s on a bl e no t i ce and oppor tuni t y t o j oi n i n any such act i on orm ay i nt er vene ther ei n. I f s uch em pl oyerori ns ur erj oi n i n s uch act i on , t hey s hal l b e ent i t l ed t o r epayment of t he amount pai d by t hem as compensa t i on a nd medi cal e xpens es f r om t he netpr ocee ds of

s uch ac t i on ( a f

t e rde duct i ng t he r eas onabl e cos t s of col l ect i on) as her ei naf

t erpr ovi ded
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 71 ( R ev. 2011) ( emphasi s a dded)
. The phr as e “i f s uch empl oyeror in su re r jo in ” m e a n s th a t th e e m p lo y e r o r in su re r is e n tit led to re p a y m e n t u n d e r th e sta tu te onl y i f i tf i r s tj oi ns ori nt er venes i n t he ac t i on. Fur t her , w her e the f ol l ow i ng par agr aph s t at es 1 t hatthe e mpl oy e e ’ s n e tr e c ov e r y “ s ha l l b e u s e d t o di s c ha r ge the l e ga l l i a bi l i t y of t he empl oyerori ns ur er , ” i ti s s i m pl y el abor at i ng on t he ear l i erphra s e “a s her ei naf t erpr ovi ded”

### 7

and appl i es onl y w her e the empl oyerori ns ur erj oi ns ori nt er venes i n t he ac t i on. M i s s . C ode A n n . § 7 1 -3-7 1 (R ev . 2 0 1 1 ). ¶1 2
. In s p it e o f th e c lear lan g u ag e o f S ec ti o n 7 1 -3-7 1 , L iberty M u tual arg u es th at t h is C our tha s ne verr equi r ed a w or ker s ’ c om pens at i on i ns ur ert o i nt er vene i n a t hi r d- par t y act i on t o enf or ce i t s s t atut or y r i ghtof r ei m bur s ement . Fol l ow i ng l anguage i n Feder ated Mut ual I nsur ance Com

pany v. McN

eal , 943 So. 2d 658 ( M i s s . 2006) , t he C our tof A ppeal s dr ew t he s ame concl us i on. I m por t ant l y, t he McN eal Courtdi d notha ve bef or e i tt he ques t i on of
w hetheri nt er vent i on w as a pr er equi s i t e t o s ubr ogat i on. M or eover , nei t hert he ca s es ci t ed by McN eal n o r L ib e rt y M u tu a l s u p p o rt L ib e rt y M u tu a l’ s c la im
. ¶13. A s i n t hi s cas e, McN eal i nvol ved an i nj ur ed empl oyee w ho s et t l ed a thi r d- par t y act i on
a ft e r r e c e iv in g c o m p e n s a tio n b e n e fi ts . I d. at 6 5 9
. T h e ins u re r in tha t ca se , F e d e ra ted M u tu a l, f ai l ed t o i nt er vene f

or m al l y acc or di ng t o Rul e 24 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. I d . at 65 9 , 6 6 2
. In ste ad , after t h e c ase w as se tt led, bu t befo re the sett lem en t f u n d s w ere di s bur s ed, F eder at ed f

i l ed a m ot i on t o compel r ei m bur s ement of al l compensa t i on pai d under S e c ti o n 7 1
- 3
- 7 1
. I

d. a t 6 5 9 . F e d e ra te d a p p e a le d th e d e n ia l o f t h a t m o tio n to th is C o u rt . I d. at660. T he McN

eal C our tt hen made the f

ol l ow i ng s t at ement w hi ch Li ber t y M utual and the C our tof A ppeal s now s ei ze upon: Fed erat ed po i nt ed outi n or al ar gum entt hatourcas e l aw has notr equi r ed a w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n insu rer to in terve n e o r j o in in a n em p loy ee ’s th ird -p a rty su it i n o rd e r to as se rt i ts sta tu to ry li e n . In d e e d , F e d e ra ted is c o rre c t, as t hi s C our thas neverre qui r ed t he i ns ur ance carr i ert o j oi n or i nt er vene i n an e m p lo y e e ’s th ird -p a rty li tig a tio n to v a lid a te o r en fo rc e its su b ro g a ted c laim to th e p ro c e e d s re c o v e re d in th a t liti g a tio n . See , e. g. , Sne e d v. Ver dun , 611 So. 2 d 9 4 7 , 9 4 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); Kidwe l l v . Gul f , Mo b ile & O h i o R. R. , 25 1 M i ss. 1 5 2 , 1 6 8 S o . 2 d 7 3 5 , 7 3 6 (1 9 6 4 ).

### 8

McN eal , 9 4 3 S o . 2 d a t 6 6 2
. ¶14. H ow ever , t he i s s ue McN eal re so lv e d w a s “ n o t w h e th e r F e d e ra ted is e n tit le d to
s u b r o g a t i o n w i t h o u ti n t e r v e n t i o n , b u tr a t h e rw h e t h e rF e d e r a t e d m a y a p p e a l t h e c i r c u i tc o u r t 's deci s i on w i t houti nt er vent i on. ” I d. W e w enton t o f

i nd that“ t he ci r cui tc our ta nd a l l par t i es t o t he l i t i gati on acc ept ed Feder at ed as havi ng i nt er vened i n t he pr ocee di ngs , ” and that “[ a] l t hough t he f

or m al pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of R ul e 24 w er e notm et , no obj ect i on w as
r ai s ed t o ei t herFeder at ed’ s par t i ci pat i on i n t he tr i al cour tor i t s purs ui tof thi s appea l
. ” I d. at 663. Fi nal l y, i n s pi t e of ourl eni entappl i cat i on of R ul e 24, “w e s t r es s [ ed] t hatt he bett er p ra c tice fo r in su re rs w h o a n ticip a te th e p o ss ib le n e e d fo r ju d icia l as sis tan c e in e n fo rc in g th e ir l i ens i s t o f

i l e a f or m al i nter vent i on i n acc or dance w i t h t he pr ovi s i ons of R ul e 24 of

t he M is s is s ip p i R u le s o f C iv il P ro c e d u re .” I d . ¶15. B eca us e the McN eal C o u rt a c c e p ted F e d e ra ted ’s m isn o m e d c laim in th e th ird -p a rty act i on , itd i d notdet er m i ne w hetheri nt er vent i on i s a pr er equi s i t e t o s ubr ogat i on. A s s uch, t he McN eal d ec isi o n it self is an inad eq u ate b asis for a rule tha t sub rog ati o n d o es n o t r eq u ir e i nt er vent i on. W hi l e McN eal ci t ed Sne e d v. Ver dun , 611 So. 2d 947, 948 ( M i s s . 1992) , and K id w e ll v . G u lf

, Mo b ile & O h io R a ilr o a d Co ., 251 M i s s . 152, 168 S o. 2d 735( 1964) , nei t her
cas e s uppor t s a c oncl us i on thatSec t i on 71- 3- 71 a nd ourpr i orde ci s i ons do notr equ i re a n
e m p lo y e r o r i n s u re r t o jo in o r i n te rv e n e to b e c o m e e n title d to re im b u rs e m e n t. ¶16. I n Sneed , the c ir cu itco u rtap p rov ed a se tt lem en t betw ee n the in jured w o rke r an d thir d par t y, butr et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on t o al l ow t he empl oyernot i ce a nd t he oppor tuni t y t o i nt er vene b e fo re fi n a l d is b u rs e m e n t o f t h e fu n d s . Sneed , 6 1 1 S o . 2 d a t 9 4 7 -4 8 . T h e e m p lo y e r d id in f acti nt er vene, and w e af f i r m ed the ci r cui tcour t ’ s deci s i on t hati nt er vent i on att hatpoi ntw as

### 9

tim e ly
. I d. a t948. W e di d not , how ever , s t at e thati nt er vent i on w as unnece s s ary. I ndeed, t he al l ow ance of

an el eventh- houri nt er vent i on s ugges t s t hati nt er vent i on w as nece s s ary f ort he
e m p lo y e r t o b e re im b u rs e d
. ¶17. I n K

idw e ll , th e ins u re r in ter v e n e d in th e em p lo y e e ’s th ird -p a rty ac tio n p rio r to trial. K idw e ll , 1 6 8 S o . 2 d a t 7 3 6 . T h e iss u e w e d e c id e d w a s w h e th e r th e in su re r w a s e n tit led to have i t s at t or ney f

ees i ncurr ed i n t he i nt er vent i on r ei m bur s ed outof t he empl oyee’ s r ecove r y. I d. a t736. W e emphasi zed thati nt er vent i on “as s ur ed the i nt er venor , by s t atut e, hi s r i ghtof
r ei m bur s ement f

orm oni es expende d as compensa t i on and m edica l expens es orof t he di s char ge of

hi s l egal l i abi l i t y t her ef ori n t he eve ntj udgm entw as obt ai ned. ” I d. A s s uch, t he i ns ur erhad a c hoi ce e i t hert o p ursue r ei m bur s ement and bea rt he cos t s of i nt er vent i on, or fo rg o re im b u rse m e n t alto g e th e r b y n o t in ter v e n in g : T he i nt ervent i on i s notr equi r ed by l aw , butis opt i onal on t he partof t he carr i er . I tcoul d i nt er vene i f t he pr os pect i ve j udgm entappea r ed gr eatenough t o r ei m bur s e i tf

orm oni es expende d i n a ccor dance w i t h s ect i on 6998- 36 [ now Sect i on 71- 3- 71] , ori tm i ghtdecl i ne t o do so as di s cr et i on m i ghtdi ct at e. T he c h o ic e o f i n te rv e n tio n is th a t o f t h e c a rr ie r a n d is n o t m a n d a to ry . I d. R a th e r th a n h o ld in g th a t i n te rv e n tio n is n o t r e q u ir e d fo r r e im b u rs e m e n t, K idw e ll su p p o rts
o u r in ter p re tatio n o f S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -7 1 tha t an em p lo y e r o r in su re r fo rg o e s re im b u rse m e n t if i texer ci s es i t s di s cr et i on nott o i nt er vene. ¶18. A l s o ati s s ue i n McN eal w a s w h e th e r a n e m p lo y e r o r in su re r w a s e n title d to
r ei m bur s ement i f

t he i nj ur ed em pl oyee w as not“made w hol e” by the thi r d- par t y r ecove r y. McN eal , 943 So. 2d at659- 60. W e r ei t er at ed thatSect i on 71- 3- 71 “unambi guous l y pr ovi des that, after de d u cti n g the c o sts of co ll ec ti o n an d att o rne y ’s fees, an y re c o v e ry fro m a third par t y . . . m us tbe appl i ed f i r s tt o r epay the w or ker s ’ compensa t i on i ns ur er ” and thus , t he

### See Miss. Power Co. v. Jones , 369 So. 2d 1381, 1387- 88 (Mi ss . 1979) (hol ding t hat 2 

### insurer cou ld b e reimb ursedo nlyo ut of p un itive d amages reco veredbyemplo yee); Lit ton Sys., Inc . v . Mur phree , 301 So. 2d 850, 852-53 (Mi ss . 1974) (hol ding t hat it was er ror for thet ri alc ourt t o de ny i nte rve nti on and a ls o that Se ction 71-3- 71 unambi guously al lows for reimbursement from wro ng ful-d eath b eneficiaries); Merchant s Co. v. Hutchins on , 199 So. 2d 81 3, 8 20 ( Mi s s . 1 96 7) (ho l di ngthat , b e c aus e w or ke r s ’ c om

pe ns at i ons t at

ut e wa s unambi gu ou s , i t

wa s unne c e s s ary and

e rr on e ou s t o a l l owi nt e rve ni ngi ns ur e r t o i ntr oduce pre judi ci alevi denc e r el at ed t o it s s ubrogati on cl ai m)
. 10 “ m a d e -w h o le ” d o c tr in e d id n o t a p p ly to th e s ta tu te . I d. a t 6 6 0
. 

### Ag ain, the cases McNeal ci te s do not s ug gest that

re im burs em ent

is mandat ed whe retheem ploye r or carrie r doe s not int er vene . B eca us e the C our tof A ppeal s us ed thi s l anguage t o s uppor ti t s hol di ng t hat 2 i nt er vent i on i s unnece s s ary, w e s i mpl y p oi ntou ttha tt he s t atut e al s o unambi guous l y pr ovi des th a t an e m p lo y e r o r in su re r m u st firs t jo in o r in ter v e n e to b e en tit led to re im b u rse m e n t. O n ly aft er j oi nderori nt er vent i on does t he s t atut e mandat e thatan empl oyerori ns ur erw ho has pai d compensa t i on benef i t s m us tbe r ei m bur s ed f r om any thi r d- par t y r ecove r y. ¶19. I n addi t i on t o t he cas es ci t ed i n McN eal , 

### Libe rty Mutua l r el ie s on Powe v . Jackson , 236 Mis s. 11, 109 So. 2d 546 (1959). I n Powe , an in juredwo rker settledhis th ird-p arty cl ai ms bef

orefi li ng sui t and without t he approvalof the Wor ker s’ Compe nsati on Co mmission
. Id. at 550. Whil e the e mpl oyer knew of these ttle me nt ne goti ations , ther e wa s no actio n in wh ich it co uldh ave join ed o r interv ened
. Id. at 549-550. Wehel d only t hat the
em ploye r di d not wa iveit s right to reimburse me nt by not int er veni ng in a

se ttle me nt t

hat too k p lace befo re an actio n was ever filed andth at w as n ot app rov ed bythe C ommissio n. Id. at 55 0. W e exp lainedthat C ommissio n ap pro val o f a settlement w itho ut su it serves “to pre se rvethe subrogation and i ndemnit y ri ghts of the e mpl oyer

or i nsur er .” Id. Bec aus e the

### 11

un app rov ed settlement prev entedthe in surer fro m hav in g th e op po rtun ity to join , we h eld that th e settlement w as inv alid an d v oid
. Id. ¶ 

### 20
. Lib erty M utu al also cites McCl uskey v. Thompson , in whichthe emp loy er andits ins ure r who we rewrongly nam ed a s de fendan ts i n thethi rd- party a ction s ought di sm is sa l “with out preju dice to their righ ts to later interv ene as plaintiffs un der sectio n 7 1-3 -71 . . . .” McCl uske y , 36 3 S o. 2 d 2 56 , 25 7-5 8 (M iss. 19 78 ). Ho wev er, the trial co urt erro neo usly orde re d that t

hey j oin i n theac ti on wi thi n thir ty days or havethe ir

subrogation c la im

bar re d. Id. at 258. We si mply re it er at ed that int er vention i s optiona l and that t he s tatute does not requ ire interv entio n w ithina specifiedtime perio d. Id. at 265. We did not dec ide , howe ver , that anemplo yer canstill be reimb ursedif it exercises its o ptio n n ot to interv ene. ¶21. T o t he contr ary, w e have on m ul t i pl e occ as i ons cons t rued Sect i on 71- 3- 71 acc or di ng t o i t s pl ai n l anguage and par aphr as ed i tas r equi r i ng i nt er vent i on bef or e an i nsurer m ay be
r ei m bur s ed. I n I

n de x Dr il lin gCo . v . Wi l

lia ms , w e expl ai ned t hata n e m pl oyee may r ecove r dam ages fr om a t hir d-party tor t feas or even i f he or s he fi rs taccep t s com pen sat i on ben efi t s, and that “i

f the em pl oyerori ns ur erj oi n i n s uch act i on , t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o be r ei m bur s ed f or compensa t i on benef

i t s pai d by t hem f

r om t he netproc eeds of the s ui t . ” Wi l lia ms , 24 2 M i ss. 775, 784, 137 So. 2d 525, 528 ( 1962) ( emphasi s added)
. I n R i char ds on v. U ni ted States Fidelit y & G uarant

y Co. , w e des cr i bed the di s t r i but i on s cheme cont ai ned i n t he s econd p ara g rap h o f S ec ti o n 7 1 -3 -7 1 a s b eing d ep en d en t up o n the e m p loy er’s o r i n su rer’s in ter v e n tio n in th e su it: [W ]he n a c o m p e n sa tio n b e n e fic iar y b rin g s a n ac tio n fo r h is in ju rie s a g a in st a th ir d -p a rt y w ro n g d o e r, and i f s uch em pl oyerori ns ur erj oi n i n s uch act i on , t he n e t p ro c e e d s o f su c h a c tio n sh a ll b e a p p lied a s fo llo w s: (1 ) “ T h e re a so n a b le

### 12

cos tof col l ect i on, ” and ( 2) “ t he r emai nder , ors o much t her eof a s i s nece s s ary, s hal l be us ed t o di s char ge the l egal l i abi l i t y of t he emp l oy er or i nsur er , ” and (3 ) “ a n y e x c e s s s h a ll b e lo n g to th e in ju re d e m p lo y e e o r h is d e p e n d e n ts .” R i char ds on , 2 3 3 M is s . 3 7 5 , 3 8 1 , 1 0 2 S o . 2 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 0 (1 9 5 8 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶22. Fi nal l y, i n 

### MerchantsCo. v . Hut chi nson , we c le arly s tate d that t he right of reimbursement is p remised upo n a sin gle requirement: All th at w as n ecessaryfor theinte rve nor to do was to le t thecourt know how muchh adb eenexp end ed b y th e insurance carr ier, either b y a p etitionto int er vene or by a

petition t o joi n in t

he c aus e of

ac ti on; th en ce

forth , Mis si ss ipp i L aw mandat ori ly provide d for thedis tribution of

any ve rdi ct re nder ed. 199 So. 2d 813, 820 (Mi ss . 1967) (e mpha si s a dded) . Other ca se s i ndic at e that

an e mpl oyer or i nsur er

who is d eni ed i nte rve nti on wil l beunabl e t o enf orc e i ts st at

utor y ri ght of subrogation
. See Miss. I

ns. Guar. Ass ’n v

. Brewer , 922 So. 2d 807, 813 ( Mis s. Ct. App. 2005) (hol ding that deni alof a m oti on t o i nte rve ne inf

ri nged on e mpl oyer

and in sur er ’s “statuto ry righ t o f subro gatio n fo r mon ies paidto” claimant); Miss. Fo od & Fuel W

orkers' Co m p. T rust v. T ackett, 778 So. 2d 136, 142- 43 (Mi ss . Ct . App. 2000) ( expl ai ning t hat interv entio n is th e pro cedural means bywhichthe subro gatio n righ t is pro tected). See a lso McDonald v. E. J. Lavi no Co. , 4 30 F . 2d

1 06 5, 1 07 2, 1 07 4 ( 5th Ci r . 1 97 0) (a ll owing post -j udgme nt int er

vention bec aus e ins ure r “s ought t o int er venefor theli mi te d purpos e of prot ec ti ng it s s ubrogati on int er es t i n a f und which had not ye t be en di stribute d” and st ating that “denialof the m oti on to i nte rve ne [ would] har m [ theins ure r] by fr

ust rati ng it s e ff

orts to s atis fy i ts subrogation i nte re st ”)
. ¶ 

### 23. In addi ti on t o the pla in languageof Se ction 71-3- 71, the ove rwhe lm ing we ight of our caselaw supp orts o ur co nclu sionth at Lib erty M utu al was requiredto jo in o r interv ene in

### Our c as es liber ally hav e a ll owed i nte rve nti on at any poi nt be for e the f ina l 3 

### dis tribution of

funds to pr eve nt a

doublere cove ry for

the inj ure d worker

and ens urethat an emplo yer o r insurer w h o h as paidcomp ensatio n w ill be fu lly reimb ursed
. See Sneed v. Ver dun , 6 11 S o. 2 d 947, 948 ( M i s s . 1992) 

### ; Miss. Food & Fuel Workers ' Comp. Trus t v . Ta ckett , 778 So. 2d 136, 142 (Mi ss . Ct . App. 2000). See a lso Mc Donald v. E. J. Lavi

no Co. , 430 F.2d 1065, 1074 (5t

h Cir . 1970)
. 13 Shoem ake ’s Al abama

a ction to enf

orc e it s st at

utor y s ubrogati on c la im
. We notethat nothi ng prohibit s an em

ploye r or ins ure r from ent ering a c ontr ac tua l s ubrogati on agr ee me nt wi th t he
em ploye e whe reby joi nder

or inte rve nti on would be unnec es sary. Howeve r, we e mpha si ze that a n em ploye r or ins ure r c annot

si mply si t out

a third-party a ction by theem ploye e and late r, af te r j udgme nt ha s be en enteredand allfunds dis per se d, s ue t o enf orc e i ts st at

utor y sub rog ationclaim. 3 

### 2. The c ir cui t c ourtwas not t he pr operfo rum for Li ber ty Mut ual’ s sub rog atio n cla im
. ¶ 

### 24. Fina lly, westre ss that t he present Missi ss ippist at e- court a ction i s c ontr ar y to t he intent of S ection71 -3-7 1 an d sh ou ld h ave b een d ismissed fo r la cko f jurisd ictionevenif Lib erty Mutual hadinterven ed in the Alab ama actio n. S ection7 1-3 -71 effectiv ely funn els al l c la im s of theem

ploye r, ins ure r, or e mpl oyee aga ins t a thi rd party int o one a ction, the reby pre venting t

he ne ed f or m ultipl e l aws uit s, as havetaken pl ac e inth is c as e. As di sc uss ed abo ve, if anemplo yer o r insurer do es no t joino r interv ene inan emp loy ee’s third -party action , its sub rog ationclaim is waiv ed. As an alternativ e to the injured w ork er brin gin g su it, Sec ti on 71- 3-71 al lows an e mpl oyer or i nsur er

who has pai d com

pens ation be nef

it s t o sue thethird party dir ec tly. Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 71-3- 71 ( Rev. 2011). Howeve r, if theem ploye r or in surer g ives th e emplo yee n otice an d anopp ortunityto be representedin the action , “all

### The only sc enari o under whic h the st at

utemight per mi t m ultipl e s uit s i s whe rethe 4 

### party bringi ng sui t ha s f

ai le d to gi ve t o theothe r party thest at utorily re quiredn otice and opport unit y to j oin. This si tuati on is not be for e us i n thi s c as e, howeve r, and doe s not change theunderlyi ng obje ctiveof the s tatut e f or a llcl ai ms to be heard toge the r e xpedi ti ously and resolv ed ina sing le action
. 14 cl ai ms of s uch com

pens ation be nef

ic iary s hal l bedet er

mi ned i n suc h ac ti on, a s we llas the cl ai m of theem ploye r or ins ure r. ” Mi ss . Code Ann. § 71-3- 71 (Re v. 2011) . Thegoalof the st at utor y sc hem e is for

al l partie s who areentitle d to r ec over y in t he third-party ac ti on and who have bee n give n noti ce to have thei r c la im s se ttle d in one act ion, whether theem ploye e, the emp loy er, or th e insurer brin gs th e suit. 4 ¶ 

### 25
. We affirmedthis p olicyinOwen & Gal loway v. Travel er s I nsurance Co. , 499 So. 2d77 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ). I n th at case, the atto rney s for th e emplo yee –wh o p revailedin h is thi rd- party a ction i n fe der alc ourt and m ader ei mbur se me nt unde r Se ction 71- 3-71 – f il ed a separate actio n inchan cery co urt ag ainst th e in te rv en ing insurer, seekin g anequ itable div isionof th e attorn ey fees an d co sts from th e first ac ti o n . Id. at 77 7-7 8. W e loo kedto language in Sec ti on 71-3-71 provi ding t hat col le ction c ost s (whic h inc ludeattor ney f ee s) ar e to be “app rov ed and al lowe d by thecourt i n whic h suc h ac ti on is pendi ng,”and r ea sone d that “[w ]hen a ju dg ment is ren deredin a th ird p arty suit andall interested p arties are pro perly bef orethecourt, theri ghts of a llparti es ar e de te rm ine d by thecourt. ” Id. at 778 (quoti ng Vard aman S . Dunn , Missi ss ippi Work men'sCompens ati on , § 235 (3ded. 1 98 2)). B ecause we f ound “the i nte nti on of theLe gis latur e em ine ntly c le ar that the court in whi ch the a ction
was pendi ng is theprope r f orum for is sue s con cerning the di stributi on of s ettl em ent

### 15

pro ceeds,” w e held that the chan cery court lacked jurisdictio n o ver th e secon d actio n. Id. at 77 9. ¶ 

### 26. Pr ocedur al l y, L i ber t y M utual s houl d have i nt er vened i n t he A l abama act i on and t hen tried to p e rsu a d e th e A lab a m a c o u rt to a p p ly M iss iss ip p i law to its su b ro g a tio n c laim . T h is
w oul d have been a di f

f i cul tbur den, as A l abama cons i s t ent l y has appl i ed the lex lo c i d e licti
rul e i n t hi r d- par t y t or tc l ai m s br oughtby an out - of
- s t at e w or kerw ho ha d a vai l ed hi m s el f of
a n o th e r s ta te ’s w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n s a tio n s ta tu te . N e. U til s . , I nc. v. P itt

m an T r ucking C o. , 595 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 3 ( A la. 1 9 9 2 ); P ow el l v. Sappington , 4 9 5 S o . 2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 0 (A la. 1 9 8 6 ). R e g a rd les s, L ib e rty M u tu a l w a iv e d its rig h t se e k to h a v e M iss iss ip p i law a p p lied to its c laim b y c h o o sin g n o t to jo in o r in ter v e n e in th e A lab a m a a c tio n . It ca n n o t n o w , h a v in g fa iled to f ol l ow t he pr ocedur e s etouti n Sect i on 71- 3- 71, enf or ce i n a s econd l aw s ui ta s ubr ogat i on cl ai m w hi ch ar os e onl y undert hats ect i on.


### CONCLUSION ¶ 

### 27. Libe rty Mutualwai ved i ts ri ght t o judi ci alenf orc em ent of i ts st at utor y subrogation cl ai m by f

ai li ng to j oin or

int er vene in t he Al abama

ac ti on. Thi s opi nion s hould not be
cons tr ued a s a re tr eat f rom our longst andi ng polic y that an i njur ed wor

ker shoul d not r ec ei ve a d ouble recov ery un der o ur w ork ers’ comp ensatio n statute. See Sa wyer v. Dependent s of Head, 51 0 S o. 2 d 4 72 , 47 7-7 8 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). In stead, b ecause L ibertyMutual slep t onits righ ts wh ile Sh oemak e’s third -partyactionwas ad jud icated inAlab ama, it forew ent its ri ghts . Ac cordingly, Lib erty Mut ualis not e nti tl ed t o re cove r a dditiona l f unds f rom

### 16

Shoem ake . Were ver setheCourt of Appe al s’ judg ment and r ei nst at e and af fi rm the jud gment of th e Circu it Co urt. ¶28. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D, AN D T HE J UD G M EN T O F TH E C I RC UI T C O UR T O F NEW TON C OU NTY I S REI NST ATED AND AF F I RM ED . W AL LE R, CJ . , RA NDO LP H, P . J . , KI TC HENS , P I ER CE , KI NG AND CO LEM AN, J J . , CO NCU R. LAM AR, J . , CO NCU RS I N PART AND I N RESULT W I T HOU T S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI CK I NS ON , P . J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .