Case Name: Karen Shiver, Wife of/and Larry SHIVER v. WILSON'S DEPARTMENT STORE, et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1990-03-29
Citations: 559 So. 2d 864
Docket Number: No. 89-CA-1363
Parties: Karen Shiver, Wife of/and Larry SHIVER v. WILSON’S DEPARTMENT STORE, et al.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, C.J., and CIACCIO and PLOTKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 559
Pages: 864–866

Head Matter:
Karen Shiver, Wife of/and Larry SHIVER v. WILSON’S DEPARTMENT STORE, et al.
No. 89-CA-1363.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 29, 1990.
Paul G. Mayoral, New Orleans, for inter-venor/appellee.
Earl A. Bridges, Jr., Jones, Walker, Wae-chter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, New Orleans, for defendants/appellants.
Before SCHOTT, C.J., and CIACCIO and PLOTKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Chief Judge.
The issue in this case is whéther a tort feasor's insurer who made a settlement with the plaintiff without regard to a pending claim by plaintiff's employer for worker's compensation benefits it paid to plain: tiff is liable to the employer where the employer filed a notice of its claim in the record, the notice did not meet the technical requirements of an intervention, but the insurer had full knowledge of the claim of the employer. The trial court resolved the issue in favor of the employer. We affirm.
Plaintiff was injured on the job on July 2, 1983. He filed suit against his employer, Inter-American Broadcasters, Inc., for worker's compensation benefits on June 28, 1984. and settled his case on January 9, 1985. He filed a separate tort suit against Wilson's Department Store and its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Liberty). On March 14, 1985 Inter-American filed in the record of the tort suit a "Notice of Request for Recovery Against Third Persons" asserting a claim for $10,900 it paid to plaintiff. On the previous day, March 13, Inter-American's attorney mailed a copy of this notice to Liberty's attorney.
On June 12, 1985 Liberty settled plaintiff's case against it for $35,000, and on July 23 its attorney deposited in the registry of the court its draft to plaintiff for $35,000. In its motion for the deposit Liberty acknowledged that Inter-American had asserted its claim. On the same day plaintiff obtained an order from the trial court authorizing his withdrawal of the check, he executed a release as to Liberty and its insured, and they filed a joint motion to dismiss the suit. When the trial judge released the check to plaintiff he was apparently unaware of Inter-American's claim, because neither Inter-American's Notice of Request nor Liberty's Motion to Deposit the check was in the record, a different judge had signed Liberty's order depositing the check, and neither counsel advised the trial judge of Inter-American's claim. On April 30, 1986 Inter-American filed an "Amended Intervention Petition" against plaintiff and Liberty seeking reimbursement for the compensation benefits and payments it paid plaintiff. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Inter-American against plaintiff and Liberty Mutual each for one-half the amount sought. Only Liberty has appealed.
Liberty contends that by failing to file a proper intervention in the tort suit to assert its claim Inter-American forfeited its right to recover and Liberty could ignore the claim. While there is merit to the position that Inter-American should have followed the technical procedural rules of law, we are not persuaded that Inter-American's failure to do so under the circumstances of this case should lead to the inequitable result sought by Liberty.
In this case, there was a combination of errors and mistakes in judgment which combined to produce a unfortunate result. In the first place, plaintiff failed to notify Inter-American of his suit against Liberty as required by R.S. 23:1102. Next, though not notified properly but having full knowledge of the suit, Inter-American filed its Notice of Request into the record instead of a formal intervention with service as required by C.C.P. Art. 1093. Finally, though fully informed of Inter-American's claim, Liberty chose to ignore it and to make the settlement, clinging to the notion that Inter-American's procedural error would preclude its recovery and running the risk of paying more than it wished to pay in settlement of the case in the event that its decision was wrong.
The record shows that Inter-American's attorney mailed a copy of the Notice of Request to Liberty's attorney on March 13 which he refers to as "self-explanatory." He concludes with, "Feel free to contact me if you need any further information." Upon receipt of this letter and knowledge of Inter-American's claim Liberty could have included Inter-American in its negotiations with plaintiff for a settlement. Instead, Liberty took the position that it could legally ignore Inter-American's claim and negotiate with plaintiff alone, even though common courtesy and fairness demanded that Liberty respond to the letter and place Inter-American on notice that it needed to take some other action to protect its interests. For this court to support Liberty's position under these circumstances would constitute a miscarriage of justice.
The trial court correctly assigned fault for the ultimate loss to plaintiff and Liberty. The judgment is affirmed.
PLOTKIN, J., concurs with written reasons.