Opinion ID: 2620623
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Setoff of Steelcase Settlement

Text: On appeal, Union Pacific assigns that the district court erred in not closely scrutinizing the Strasburgs’ settlement with Steelcase. Union Pacific contends the settlement overallocated 9 In re Interest of Zylena R. & Adrionna R., 284 Neb. 834, 825 N.W.2d 173 (2012). Nebraska Advance Sheets STRASBURG v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 751 Cite as 286 Neb. 743 funds to Robin’s loss of consortium claim while underfunding Strasburg’s claim in an effort to reduce the amount of that settlement, which was subject to setoff by any verdict received against Union Pacific.
Prior to trial, Strasburg and Robin settled their action against Steelcase, the company that manufactured the chair on which Strasburg was sitting when he was injured. The total settlement was for $725,000. By the terms of the settlement, $425,000 was allocated to Strasburg’s claim and $300,000 was allocated to Robin’s loss of consortium claim. Following the verdict, Union Pacific filed for a setoff of the settlement proceeds and additionally requested that the district court reallocate more of the settlement to Strasburg. At a hearing held postverdict on various motions, Union Pacific introduced into evidence the settlement agreement, a loss of earning capacity report on Strasburg, and a deposition taken of Robin. Following the hearing at which the record was left open, Strasburg filed an affidavit on the issue of the settlement allocation. The district court granted Union Pacific’s request for setoff for the Steelcase settlement for $425,000, the amount allocated to Strasburg’s claim in the settlement agreement. The district court noted that it had reviewed the briefs and records, but did not otherwise make any findings regarding the allocation.
[7,8] Under FELA, when an injured employee has alleged that both a FELA and a non-FELA defendant are responsible for the injury, the majority rule holds that a settlement with the non-FELA defendant results in a dollar-for-dollar offset in the judgment against the nonsettling FELA defendant.10 But there is no loss of consortium recovery in a FELA action, and any settlement reached on a loss of consortium claim is not subject to setoff against the FELA defendant.11 10 See Schadel v. Iowa Interstate R.R., Ltd., 381 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2004). 11 See Dixon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 990 F.2d 1440 (4th Cir. 1993). Nebraska Advance Sheets 752 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS Union Pacific directs us to case law suggesting, at least in the workers’ compensation context, that a trial court has the responsibility to closely scrutinize a settlement agreement to ensure that an employer’s rights are not abused.12 Union Pacific further contends that the district court wholly failed to scrutinize this settlement. While we agree with Union Pacific that a district court should not simply rubberstamp a previous settlement in this context, we disagree that the district court failed to adequately scrutinize this settlement. [9] The burden to show that the allocation set forth in the Steelcase settlement was not reasonable lies with the party seeking credit against the settlement, in this case Union Pacific.13 In an attempt to meet its burden, Union Pacific introduced an earning capacity report regarding Strasburg, and also introduced Robin’s deposition testimony, in which Robin indicated that at the time of the settlement, it was not expected that Strasburg would ever work again. In addition, Robin testified that it was expected Strasburg would need further surgery, and that her duties as a parent had significantly increased because she did many of those duties on her own—in addition to her duties caring for Strasburg because of his injuries. In response, Strasburg offered his affidavit indicating that contrary to Robin’s testimony, Strasburg had submitted to his physician for comment and review a list of jobs at Union Pacific that he would be able to perform with his likely physical restrictions. While it was not definitively decided, Strasburg contends that at the time of settlement, it was likely that he would be able to return to work. [10] Union Pacific argues that the lack of specific findings by the district court shows that the district court failed to consider the reasonableness of the allocation set forth in the settlement. As a general proposition, this court does not require 12 See, Rains v. Kolberg Mfg. Corp., 897 P.2d 845 (Colo. App. 1994); Blagg v. Ill. F.W.D. Truck & Equip. Co., 143 Ill. 2d 188, 572 N.E.2d 920, 157 Ill. Dec. 456 (1991). 13 See, Davis Erection Co. v. Jorgensen, 248 Neb. 297, 534 N.W.2d 746 (1995); Home Fed. Sav. & Loan v. McDermott & Miller, 243 Neb. 136, 497 N.W.2d 678 (1993). Nebraska Advance Sheets STRASBURG v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 753 Cite as 286 Neb. 743 a district court to explain its reasoning. Only in certain situations is a court required to make findings of fact, typically by request,14 or as required by statute15 or court rule.16 And our review of the district court’s record does not suggest that the district court failed to examine the settlement agreement simply because it did not make specific findings. First, no request was made asking for such specific findings. Further, the record, in particular the district court’s order on this issue, shows that the district court presided over the trial in this matter, received a motion regarding the proper amount of setoff, and then held a hearing on the setoff request. And the order disposing of Union Pacific’s motion specifically noted that the district court had reviewed the briefs and record. We decline to presume that the district court simply failed to consider the motion filed before it when it did not make findings which no Nebraska case, statute, or rule required of it, particularly in light of the fact that the language of the order clearly shows that the request was considered. We reject Union Pacific’s suggestion that the district court failed to consider the reasonableness of the agreement. Rather, we review the district court’s order for an abuse of discretion17 and find none. The evidence presented at the hearing showed that Robin was essentially a single parent to the Strasburgs’ four children. At one point, Robin had a job to help support the family, but was unable to both work and parent her children effectively. Strasburg, particularly in the time following the accident and subsequent medical care and surgery, was not able to provide much assistance. More surgery was expected. The couple’s 14 Lindgren v. City of Gering, 206 Neb. 360, 292 N.W.2d 921 (1980) (district court must make specific findings upon request of party). 15 See, In re Interest of Shaquille H., 285 Neb. 512, 827 N.W.2d 501 (2013) (motion to discharge—speedy adjudication); State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (motion to discharge—speedy trial); State v. Constanzo, 235 Neb. 126, 454 N.W.2d 283 (1990) (postconviction). 16 Neb. Ct. R. § 4-203 (rev. 2011). 17 See 47 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 830 (2006). Nebraska Advance Sheets 754 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS marriage was strained by the injury and by its emotional and physical toll on Strasburg. Money was tight; Robin described it as “living penny by penny.” The couple had to borrow from Robin’s father, who was retired and on a fixed income, in order to survive. The children were not able to participate in sports or other activities. Union Pacific makes much of the fact that Robin was not employed during this time, while Strasburg’s injury meant that the couple was without his wages. Union Pacific also notes that when the Steelcase settlement was entered, the couple did not believe that Strasburg would ever work again. But that was contradicted by Strasburg’s affidavit, which suggested that it was not a foregone conclusion that he would not work again. And in fact, the record shows that Strasburg is back at work as a carman for Union Pacific, admittedly with some physical restrictions. Given this evidence, and the evidence presented at trial, it cannot be said that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the settlement was allocated appropriately by the settlement agreement. The fact that the district court did not make findings or otherwise explain its decision does not prevent us from reaching that decision. Union Pacific’s second assignment of error is without merit.