Opinion ID: 1359312
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adversity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction[3]

Text: Allstate contends that the trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction over this case since the Robertsons and the plaintiff had identical interests. Most notably, the Robertsons would receive any recovery by Sidney, Jr.'s estate as his sole beneficiaries in intestacy. See supra note 1. Moreover, because the Robertsons prompted the plaintiff's initiation of this suit, Allstate argues that Linda Myers is only a figurehead. According to Allstate, the Robertsons are the real plaintiffs and are in essence suing themselves. In discussing the standing requirement, this court has stated that an Alaska court has no subject matter jurisdiction unless the lawsuit before it presents an actual controversy involving a genuine relationship of adversity between the parties. Trustees for Alaska v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources, 736 P.2d 324, 329-30 & n. 9 (Alaska 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1032, 108 S.Ct. 2013, 100 L.Ed.2d 601 (1988); Wagstaff v. Superior Court, 535 P.2d 1220, 1225 (Alaska 1975). Adversity insures that parties will energetically pursue their opposing positions and present facts necessary for the fair resolution of the case. Bowers Office Prods., Inc. v. University of Alaska, 755 P.2d 1095, 1098 (Alaska 1988). Accordingly, adversity constitutes the basic requirement for standing in Alaska. Trustees for Alaska, 736 P.2d at 327. This court has also held that children have a right to bring lawsuits against their parents for negligently inflicted injuries. Hebel v. Hebel, 435 P.2d 8, 15 (Alaska 1967) (no parental immunity bar to an unemancipated minor's negligence action against a parent). Thus, there is no per se failure of adversity simply because this lawsuit arises from an alleged intra-family tort. In Hebel, this court specifically recognized the potential for collusive intra-family litigation designed to defraud insurance carriers but determined that this danger does not warrant denial of a remedy to the child. Id. at 12. It further stated: Since the insurer is the real defendant, it has been said that there is danger of fraud and collusion between parent and child. One may not, of course, deny the hazard, but such a danger, being present in all liability insurance cases, furnishes reason not for denial of a cause of action, but for added caution on the part of court and jury in examining and assessing the facts.  Id. (quoting with approval Badigian v. Badigian, 9 N.Y.2d 472, 215 N.Y.S.2d 35, 42, 174 N.E.2d 718, 723 (1961) (Fuld, J., dissenting)) (emphasis added). Similarly, in Aydlett v. Haynes, 511 P.2d 1311 (Alaska 1973), this court noted that intra-family tort litigation can pose special problems due to the existence of insurance. In Aydlett, a wife sued her husband to recover for injuries caused by the husband's negligence. The court recognized that, in ordinary personal injury litigation, an insurer and a defendant-insured usually have a common interest in avoiding liability. Id. at 1315 n. 8. However, in intra-family litigation, the interests of the insured may conflict with those of the insurer since the insured may have a financial interest in seeing the plaintiff prevail. For this reason, the court stated, [W]here the case involves an intra-family tort action, the trial judge must take care to assure that the actual interests of all parties are fairly represented. Id. In light of Hebel and Aydlett, there is no merit to Allstate's contention that the Estate's claims against the Robertsons were not actionable and should be precluded as a matter of law. [4] See also Drickersen v. Drickersen, 604 P.2d 1082 (Alaska 1979) (husband's suit against wife on behalf of injured child could lie). Rather, as these cases indicate, the action may proceed. However, the trial court must exercise added caution to insure that the potentially conflicting interests of an insurer and its insured are fairly represented. This is precisely what Judge Fabe did. Consistent with the obligations imposed under Hebel and Aydlett, the court required counsel for the Robertsons to further the Robertsons' interests in this case as defendants, not as plaintiffs. Although placed in a sometimes awkward position, Mr. Pease conscientiously and effectively presented the Robertsons' defense. [5] Further protecting the interests of all parties, the court appropriately required that the Robertsons' defense counsel be independent from Allstate in the sense that Mr. Pease would not report to Allstate. By these actions, the court struck a balance between the Estate's right to sue and Allstate's right to an adversarial defense. Because this case involved an adversarial relationship, the trial was not a sham and was properly allowed to proceed. [6] While Allstate recognizes the general rule that intra-family litigation is permissible, it claims that this case is distinguishable from other Alaska intra-family tort cases because the Robertsons stand to gain 100% of any recovery paid to Sidney, Jr.'s estate. Allstate urges us to find that, in situations where the defendants' pecuniary interests are identical to those of the plaintiff, the defendants are in fact the real plaintiffs. Under this reasoning, the Robertsons are in essence suing themselves, so there is no adversity and no subject matter jurisdiction. Allstate cites several cases from other jurisdictions in support of this argument. These decisions adhere to the view that the administrator of a decedent's estate is not the real party in interest to the estate's wrongful death action; the real party in interest is the beneficiary to whatever recovery is obtained by the estate. Therefore, if the defendant is also the sole beneficiary of the estate, he must be considered both plaintiff and defendant, and no action will lie. See Dishon's Administrator v. Dishon's Administrator, 187 Ky. 497, 219 S.W. 794, 795 (1920) (no cause of action under Kentucky's wrongful death statute when defendant is the sole beneficiary of plaintiff-estate because the wrongdoer would be both defendant and real plaintiff); Glucksman v. Strelecki, 102 N.J. Super. 53, 245 A.2d 228, 231-32 (1968) (granting summary judgment against plaintiff-estate because defendant, sole beneficiary of estate, was real party in interest and effectively acted as both plaintiff and defendant); Davenport v. Patrick, 227 N.C. 686, 44 S.E.2d 203, 205-06 (1947) (administrator of estate had no wrongful death cause of action against decedent's tortfeasor-husband who was sole beneficiary of wife's estate); Carver v. Carver, 310 N.C. 669, 314 S.E.2d 739, 743 (1984) (reiterating the Davenport rule in dicta). These cases also rely on the public policy that no person should profit from his or her own wrongdoing. This principle provides that it would be incongruous to permit an estate to recover damages, when the sole beneficiaries of that award are the same people who negligently caused the injury in the first place. See Carver, 314 S.E.2d at 745; Dishon's Administrator, 219 S.W. at 795; Glucksman, 245 A.2d at 232. However, a negligence action may proceed if there exist beneficiaries to the estate other than any negligent beneficiaries. See Carver, 314 S.E.2d at 744-45. In such situations, the non-negligent beneficiaries may recover their shares of any damages paid to the estate. Any negligent persons who otherwise would be beneficiaries are precluded from obtaining any part of the estate's recovery based on public policy considerations. Id. Whether the beneficiaries to an estate are in fact the true plaintiffs in a wrongful death action by the estate is a question of first impression in Alaska. We conclude that, where any recovery by the estate would not be paid directly to specified individuals, the beneficiaries to the estate should not be considered the plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional bar to an administrator's negligence action against parties who might otherwise stand to benefit from their wrongdoing. In resolving this issue, we look to Alaska's wrongful death statute, AS 09.55.580. [7] It states that, in the event the decedent left no spouse, children or other dependents, any recovery for wrongful death will be paid to the decedent's estate. The recovery does not go directly to any specified beneficiaries. The proper beneficiaries of the estate can be determined subsequent to the estate's recovery. For this reason, the beneficiaries of an intestate estate are not the true plaintiffs in an action by the estate. The plaintiff is the administrator, on behalf of the estate, which is distinct from its beneficiaries. [8] Our conclusion is supported by precedent under Oregon law. [9] In Oviatt v. Camarra, 210 Or. 445, 311 P.2d 746 (1957), the Oregon Supreme Court interpreted Oregon's wrongful death statute and determined that an estate is distinct from its beneficiaries when any recovery would be paid to the estate, not to the beneficiaries directly. We find this aspect of Oviatt persuasive, and therefore adopt it as the rule in Alaska. See also W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 127 at 958 (5th ed. 1984) (under wrongful death acts where any damages are recoverable on behalf of decedent's estate, the estate is considered distinct from its beneficiaries). In this case, there is no dispute that any wrongful death recovery by the administrator would be paid to Sidney, Jr.'s estate. The determination of eligible beneficiaries to that award is a question arising subsequent to the jurisdictional issue. We therefore address it as a matter of public policy apart from the adversity question. Accordingly, we believe the trial court properly asserted subject matter jurisdiction over this litigation. The real question is whether, had the Estate been successful on its claims, the Robertsons should forfeit their right to inherit any part of Sidney, Jr.'s estate. We address this question as a matter of public policy.