Court Opinion

ID: 9713448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:15:36.179624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:18.869964
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice.
The principal issue presented on this appeal is: Does § 50-24.1-08, NDCC, stop the running of the statute of limitations as to claims for personal injury when the State has paid those same claims under the program of medical assistance for needy persons pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 50-24.1, NDCC? The trial court held that § 50-24.1-08 “is a recoupment statute .. . to recover payments made to a claimant or his estate” and, accordingly, held that it has no application to this case. A summary judgment was entered against the State. We do not agree.
The State paid the cost of medical assistance needed by Veronica Dumarce, Irene Diaz, Ronald Bruce and Sharon Rough, who were all injured in separate automobile accidents in 1978, under circumstances which made the assigned risk plan established under § 26-41-19, NDCC, applicable. The amounts paid by the State were: for Du-marce, $1,848.14; for Diaz, $3,126.39; for Bruce, $21,590.60; and for Rough, $5,630.64. The trial court held that the summary judgment against the State did not apply to the claim involving Diaz because she was a minor. See § 28-01-25, NDCC.
At the time the State provided the costs of the medical assistance for which it has made claim here, the statute provided:
“SUBROGATION OF SOCIAL SERVICE BOARD TO RIGHT OF RECOVERY-ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIM. The social service board is subrogated to any right of recovery an applicant or recipient under this chapter may have for medical costs incurred under this chapter not exceeding the amount of funds expended by the social service board for the care and treatment of the applicant or recipient. The applicant or recipient, or other person acting in his behalf, shall execute and deliver an assignment of claim or other authorizations as necessary to secure fully the right of recovery of the social service board.” See § 1, Chapter 455, S.L.1977. (The reference to “subrogation” was eliminated by Chapter 492, S.L. 1981. See § 50-24.1-02.1, NDCC, 1981 Pocket Supplement.)
In the light of this statute, we conclude that the reference to “repayment” in § 50-24.1-08, NDCC, is not limited to recoupment or recovery of payments from the claimant or his estate.
The Forty-fourth Session of the Legislative Assembly enacted two measures significant to the issue under consideration. In House Bill 1515 (Chapter 447, S.L. 1975) a new section was added to Chapter 50-24.-1, NDCC, reading as follows:
“Statute of limitations shall not run. The statute of limitations shall not run against claims of the state of North Dakota for repayment of medical assistance provided under this chapter.” See § 50-24.1-08, NDCC.
*247The same legislative assembly enacted House Bill 1214 (Chapter 265, S.L.1975)— the North Dakota Auto Accident Reparations Act. See Chapter 26-41, NDCC. In addition to providing that no action for no-fault benefits may be commenced later than two years after a known loss, the statute specifies that:
“The time period limitations prescribed in this section shall govern all actions for basic and optional excess no-fault benefits under this chapter notwithstanding any limitation prescribed elsewhere in the laws of this state.” See § 26-41-16(4), NDCC.
A practical reading of the “letter of the law” leads to the absurd conclusion that each of the two, H.B. 1515 and H.B. 1214, cancels out the other. Each is clear and unambiguous when read alone, but both become ambiguous when read together. If a statute is unambiguous, the letter of the law is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. Section 1-02-05, NDCC. These statutes are latently ambiguous and we may consider all pertinent, extrinsic evidence available. See St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Andrews, 321 N.W.2d 483 (N.D.1982).
Our search of legislative history reveals no insight into legislative intent helpful to a resolution of this case. Section 1-02-09, NDCC, provides one guideline: when irreconcilable statutes are passed during the same legislative session, we are to assume that the “latest in date of final passage” shall govern. In this particular instance, both H.B. 1214 and H.B. 1515 received final legislative action on the same marathon legislative day — March 26,1975, the last day of the session.
Another guideline is supplied in § 1-02-07, NDCC. That section provides:
“Whenever a general provision in a statute shall be in conflict with a special provision in the same or in another statute, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both provisions, but if the conflict between the two provisions is irreconcilable the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted later and it shall be the manifest legislative intent that such general provision shall prevail.”
Both statutes, §§ 50-24.1-08 and 26-41-16(4), have general aspects as well as special aspects, dependent upon one’s perspective. There is substantial doubt whether or not § 26-41-16(4) is more significantly special than § 50-24.1-08.
We acknowledge that this is an extremely close question and its ultimate determination is clearly a policy matter which ought to be presented to the legislature for a more definitive determination.
“. .. where substantial doubt exists as to which of two limitation statutes is applicable, the longer period will be applied.” Sprecher v. Magstadt, 213 N.W.2d 881, 883 (N.D.1973).
Because § 50-24.1-08 provides for the longer period (unlimited), we apply it.
This court does not agree with the trial court’s determination that the North Dakota Assigned Claims Plan is not an entity capable of being sued. We have said that unincorporated associations that engage in doing business in this state under a common name may be sued under such common name. Askew v. Joachim Memorial Home, 234 N.W.2d 226, 235 (N.D.1975).
Although other questions were briefed and argued, the answers to those questions are not necessary to a determination of this case and need not be now answered. Hospital Services v. Brooks, 229 N.W.2d 69 (N.D.1975).
The judgment is reversed. Because a matter of public interest is involved, costs are not allowed on the appeal.
ERICKSTAD, C. J., and KERIAN, District Judge, concur.
KERIAN, District Judge, sitting in place of PAULSON, J., disqualified.