Opinion ID: 2464109
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: cost of collection

Text: Appellants contend that the trial court erred in not reducing the amount of Hartford's judgment by Daves' cost of collection incurred in the personal injury lawsuit. This argument is essentially that Hartford should pay its share of the cost of collection. Section 23-89-207(b) provides that all costs of collection in an action to recover for injury shall be assessed against the insurer and insured in the proportion each benefits from the recovery. The costs of collection under this section include reasonable attorney's fees. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co., supra . In this case, Daves did not notify Hartford of his suit against the tortfeasor so that Hartford could intervene to protect its interest and then refused to reimburse Hartford out of the settlement recovery, contrary to the dictates of section 23-89-207(a). As a result, Hartford was forced to bring a different action to enforce its claim, thereby incurring separate expenses and attorney's fees. Accordingly, Hartford contends that it has paid its share of the costs and thus the trial court did not err in refusing to reduce the amount of its judgment. However, Hartford's costs were not costs of collection of the tort settlement. Although the end result may be unjust, we must follow the code provision, which dictates that Hartford be assessed costs of collection in the proportion it benefited from the recovery by Daves. The amount of the settlement was $25,000; Hartford, in enforcing its lien, received $9,060 from the settlement, or 36.24% of the settlement. Daves' costs of collection were $7,939 ($7,500 in attorney's fees and $439 in other expenses). Hartford's share of the fees and expenses is $2,877.09. Accordingly, we reduce the amount of Hartford's award from $9,060 to $6,182.91. Affirmed as modified.