Court Opinion

ID: 9727788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:50:24.176549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:42.886621
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the result reached by the majority and all of the observations made therein with one exception.
The majority implies that the burden was on Pope to notify the Association of the proposed settlement and release and that in failing to do so he settled with Temple at his peril. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Pope knew, or had any reason to expect, that Temple would pursue a claim against the Association. Perhaps sophisticated insurance investigators might have anticipated the possibility but the principles which we enunciate in our opinions are applicable to the unsophisticated individual as well.
*958I would place the burden for notice to the employer upon the employee who wishes to effect a settlement with a tortfeasor. Thus, in the case at bench, I would give Pope credit for that part of the settlement which represented compensation for disability and loss of earning power. The Association should then be permitted to adjust Temple’s claim against it in order to recoup the money it expended, or will expend, for those same items of damage.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 14, 1979.