Case Name: In the Matter of the Claim of Henry Beekman against W. A. Brodie, Inc., et al., Respondents. The State Industrial Board, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1928-10-16
Citations: 249 N.Y. 175
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Claim of Henry Beekman against W. A. Brodie, Inc., et al., Respondents. The State Industrial Board, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 249
Pages: 175–178

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Claim of Henry Beekman against W. A. Brodie, Inc., et al., Respondents. The State Industrial Board, Appellant.
(Argued October 2, 1928;
decided October 16, 1928.)
Albert Ottinger, Attorney-General (E. C. Aiken of counsel), for appellant.
The claimant is not estopped from pursuing his remedy in compensation where he has made no election under section 29, providing the amount which he receives is deducted from the compensation. (Lester v. Otis Elevator Co., 169 App. Div. 613; Rosebrock v. General Electric Co., 236 N. Y. 227; Doyle v. Barton, 206 App. Div. 784; Matter of Meyers v. Johnson, 197 App. Div. 911: Egan v. Otis Elevator Co., 209 App. Div. 332; Matta v. Dennings Point Brick Works, 224 N. Y. 596; Corigliano v. International Druggists Supply Co., 222 App. Div. 843; Clow v. Keith, 247 N. Y. 583.)
William B. Davis and E. C. Sherwood for respondents.
The claimant’s unauthorized settlement has, under section 29 of the statute, barred his right to compensation. (Matta v. Dennings Point Brick Works, 224 N. Y. 596; Matter of Sienko v. Bopp & Morgenstern, 248 N. Y. 40; Matter of McKee v. White, 218 App. Div. 300; 244 N. Y. 610.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The employer was estopped from asserting its rights under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 67), section 29, relative to written consent when it disclaimed liability and advised the employee to settle his case with the third party (Matter of Clow v. Keith's Fordham Theatre, 247 N. Y. 583). The insurance carrier was not bound by such waiver. Its own written' consent or waiver thereto was necessary to bind it. As against the insurer, the employee has lost his right to the deficiency (O'Brien v. Lodi, 246 N. Y. 46). His claim against the employer remains (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 53). Workmen's Compensation Law, section 54, subdivision 2, relates to jurisdiction and does not apply to a case where both insured and carrier are parties to the proceeding.
The order dismissing the award against W. A. Brodie, Inc., employer, should be reversed and the award of the State Industrial Board affirmed with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division. The order dismissing the award against the Travelers Insurance Company should be affirmed with costs against the State Industrial Board.