Source: http://texas-opinions.com/08-Texas-Mutual-Ins-Co-v-Ledbetter-Tex-2008-by-Bister-insurance-law-subrogation.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:48:35+00:00

Document:
them rather than making the tortfeasors pay twice.
as to Parts I through III and Part V.
$1,258 monthly death benefits to his widow and minor son.
along with notice of the hearing set on December 14th.
over the carrier’s objection that doing so would subvert its subrogation rights.
instead focusing his questions on protecting himself.
unclear to what), and ordered the carrier to keep paying Ledbetter’s widow and son future benefits.
court of appeals declined to set aside the trial court’s nonsuit and reinstate Ledbetter’s wife and son as parties.
costs for carriers (and thus employers, and thus the public) and prevents double recovery by workers.
* any recovery greater than past and future benefits combined goes to the beneficiary.
for benefits, including medical benefits, that have been paid for the compensable injury.
correctly held the trial court abused its discretion in doing so.
The court of appeals was also correct that the trial court erred in striking the carrier’s intervention.
unnecessary delay nor prejudice to the existing parties.
did it have any reason to intervene to protect its claim.
they got and agreed to the carrier’s right to first money as Texas law requires.
be denied because the carrier neither pleaded nor proved the exact amount of benefits it paid.
give fair notice of that claim, not the specific dollar amount sought.
court had no basis whatsoever for denying subrogation completely.
not insist on a summary trial or on being dismissed at the same time, a matter to which we now turn.
The plaintiffs argue the trial court had no choice but to grant their nonsuit and dismiss them from the case.
not someone else’s claims they are trying to avoid.
carrier is entitled to first money, and that right is gone forever if the money goes first to someone else.
nonsuit their own affirmative claims, they were not entitled to dismissal from the case.
nonsuited the minor’s claims, but that was not his motion to make after an attorney ad litem had been appointed.
should disgorge them rather than making the tortfeasors pay twice.
entirely and starting the litigation from scratch.
reimbursement of past and future benefits, and for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in trying to collect them.
(citing Fort Worth Lloyds v. Haygood, 246 S.W.2d 865, 869 (Tex. 1952)).
this appeal, the latter has filed an amicus brief supporting Texas Mutual’s petition.
 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 44(2).
 See Tex. Prob. Code § 38(b)(1).
his handling of the case.
plaintiffs’ counsel), W.L. Burke III (the ad litem), and the estate of Charles Ledbetter.
is reimbursed first . . . .”); Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Baker, 87 S.W.3d 526, 530 (Tex. 2002); Fort Worth Lloyds v.
Haygood, 246 S.W.2d 865, 869 (Tex. 1952).
deceased employee who are parents, stepparents, siblings, or grandparents of the deceased.”).
 Argonaut Ins., 87 S.W.3d at 530.
 Tex. Lab. Code § 417.002(a).
otherwise, “‘[s]hall’ imposes a duty”).
S.W.3d at 530; Fort Worth Lloyds v. Haygood, 246 S.W.2d 865, 869 (Tex. 1952).
 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 60.
 Citizens State Bank of Sealy, Tex. v. Caney Invs., 746 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1988).
745, 761 (5th Cir. 2005)).
 See Tex. Lab. Code § 417.003.
 Tex. R. Civ. P. 95.
 See Tex. R. Civ. P. 245.
 See Lege v. Jones, 919 S.W.2d 870, 874 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ); Old Republic Ins.
Co. v. Diaz, 750 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1988, writ denied).
 Tex. Workers’ Comp. Ins. Fund v. Serrano, 962 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex. 1998).
§ 408.182, the carrier does not assert its subrogation claim against them.
Court of Appeals, 808 S.W.2d 56, 59 (Tex. 1991).
(punctuation omitted); BHP Petroleum Co., Inc. v. Millard, 800 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex. 1990).
 Tex. Lab. Code § 417.001(b).
counterclaim regarding the parties’ contractual rights in the future).
(Tex. App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (noting carrier may bring conversion action against plaintiff’s attorney).
same, and the [tortfeasor] will not be subjected to double liability”).

References: V.

 v. 
 § 38
 v. 
 v.

 § 417
 v. 
 v. 
 § 417
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

§ 408
 v. 
 § 417