Opinion ID: 1967540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: original carrier's liability

Text: PMA's final argument is that even if the statute of limitations is tolled by the conduct of the employer, any interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act which imputes liability to PMA, as a result of actions over which it had no control, represents an unjust taking of PMA's property. This argument is not supported by the statute. The Workmen's Compensation Act provides in part that all policies insuring the payment of compensation under this Chapter, shall contain a clause to the effect that ... the insurer shall in all things be bound by and subject to the awards, judgments or decisions rendered against the insured. 19 Del.C. § 2378(a). The decision of the Board, which was affirmed by the Superior Court, was a decision against the State [employer]. PMA, by the standard provisions of compensation insurance policies, agreed to be bound by decisions rendered against its insured, included decisions tolling the statute of limitations. There is no unjustness in a taking that has been specifically anticipated and agreed to in advance. The conclusion that the statute of limitations runs against the employer and can be tolled by the conduct of the employer directly addresses PMA's unjust taking claim. In Forbes, this Court ratified, reaffirmed and refined the last injurious exposure rule originally set forth in DiSabatino & Sons, Inc. v. Facciolo, Del.Supr., 306 A.2d 716, 719 (1973). In DiSabatino & Sons, we stated: If an injured workman suffers a recurrence, he may apply for further compensation under the quoted section and if there has in the meantime been a change of insurers, the liability therefor falls upon that insurer which was liable for the original benefits. On the other hand, if his condition is not a true recurrence, but is brought about or aggravated by a new work-connected accident, the liability falls upon that insurer whose policy is in effect at the date of the new accident... Although this rule may appear somewhat arbitrary and may not be the best of all possible methods of handling such a situation, any other rule must be laid down by the legislature rather than the courts. Id. at 719. PMA does not dispute that the medical bills that were paid relate to Dernberger's 1976 back injury. PMA also does not dispute the fact that under DiSabatino liability would fall upon it as the insurer which was liable for the original benefits.