Title: Litton Systems, Inc. v. Murphree
Citation: 301 So. 2d 850
Docket Number: 47737
State: Mississippi
Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court
Date: October 14, 1974

301 So. 2d 850 (1974) LITTON SYSTEMS, INC. v. Mrs. Mary M. MURPHREE et al. No. 47737. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 14, 1974. White &amp; Morse, Eldon L. Bolton, Jr., Gulfport, for appellant. Cumbest &amp; Cumbest, John L. Hunter, Pascagoula, for appellees. *851 ROBERTSON, Justice: The Circuit Court of Jackson County refused to allow Litton Systems, Inc. to intervene in a third party action brought by the heirs at law of Carl E. Murphree, deceased, against Baggett Industrial Constructors, Inc. and American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, after plaintiffs had taken a non-suit against American Mutual and had settled their claim against Baggett for $125,000. Litton, as a self-insurer, was attempting to intervene to recover $1910 which it had paid to the plaintiffs under the provisions of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act. The "Order Granting Approval of Third Party Settlement" recited in part: Before American Mutual was non-suited, Knox White, its attorney, filed a Motion of Non-Joinder, suggesting that Litton was a necessary party because Litton had paid workmen's compensation and would be entitled to recover against third party defendants. The trial court overruled the Motion of Non-Joinder. Eldon L. Bolton, Jr., one of the attorneys for American Mutual, testified in response to questions propounded to him by his law partner, Knox White, at the hearing on Litton's Petition to Intervene: Mr. Shaddock and Mr. Bryan testified that they remembered no such agreement. Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-3-71 (1972), provides: In the original third party action American Mutual was sued as a defendant. Litton Systems, Inc. was not. So Litton Systems, Inc., as the employer of the deceased and its own insurer, was not given any "reasonable notice and opportunity to join in any such action or ... intervene therein". When American Mutual suggested that Litton was a necessary party plaintiff, its motion of non-joinder was overruled. The Court's action would indicate that it had been apprised of an agreement among the attorneys. Mr. Bolton testified to that effect when he said that if "Litton would be paid out of any judgment proceeds or any settlement ... we would not press the motion for non-joinder". Litton was at least entitled under the statute to an official notice that suit had been filed and it could join or intervene therein. The court recognized that Litton was one of the claimants when it provided in its Order Approving Third Party Settlement: The appellees also contend that in any event Litton should be charged with its proportionate part of the costs of collection of the $125,000. Appellees also argue that Litton should not be allowed to recover the $500 funeral expenses paid by it under the Workmen's Compensation Act, because in a wrongful death action the heirs cannot recover funeral expenses from the third party. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 71-3-71 (1972), provides: In this case, by settlement before trial $125,000 was recovered from the third party. Section 71-3-71 specifically answers the contention that the employer or insurer should pay a proportionate part of the costs of collection, by providing that reasonable costs of collection as approved and allowed by the court in which the suit was pending will be first paid out of any amount recovered; next, the employer or insurer "shall be entitled to repayment of the amount paid by them as compensation and medical expenses from the net proceeds of such action," and "any excess shall belong to the injured employee or his dependents." The term "Compensation" is defined in Mississippi Code Annotated Section 71-3-3 (1972): We construed this provision of Section 71-3-3 in Kidwell v. Gulf, Mobile &amp; Ohio Railroad, 251 Miss. 152, 168 So. 2d 735 (1964), to mean exactly what it says; that is, that the employer and insurer are *853 entitled to recover compensation paid, and that the term "compensation" includes funeral benefits paid under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The trial court was in error in not allowing Litton to intervene and recover the $1910 retained in the registry of the court to cover the benefits actually paid by Litton under the requirements of the Workmen's Compensation law to the heirs at law of its deceased employee. The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, reversed and judgment rendered here for Litton for the $1910 retained in the registry of the court. Reversed and judgment here for appellant. RODGERS, P.J., and PATTERSON, SMITH and SUGG, JJ., concur.