Court Opinion

ID: 9784899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:57:10.198711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:00.840271
License: Public Domain

11 KAUGER, J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
12 I concur that the insurer's claim was erroneously dismissed as time barred. I dissent to the majority's holding that the insurer's claim for reimbursement from the employee accrued when the employee became entitled to the proceeds of the settlement with the tortfeasor. Rather, I am persuaded by the rationale of Rockwood Insurance Co. v. Williamson, 596 F.Supp. 1524 (N.D.Texas 1984). Williamson involved an injured *996worker who, after receiving benefits from an Oklahoma workers' compensation carrier, obtained a judgment against the tortfeasor. The compensation carrier sued the injured worker to recoup the amount of benefits it had paid the worker. The Williamson court determined that the cause was governed by Texas law rather than Oklahoma law, and it held that no cause of action arose against the injured worker until: 1) the worker received a judgment; and 2) the worker refused to reimburse the workers' compensation carrier for benefits previously paid.
13 Regardless of the Williamson court's application of Texas law rather than Oklahoma law or characterization of the claim as contract-based, the court's rationale is per-suagive here. Whether a worker's lability to the workers' compensation benefits carrier is created through a contractual obligation or under 85 0.8.1991 § 44(a), it is the worker's refusal to reimburse the insurer after the worker received the proceeds of the settlement which triggered the running of the statute of limitations.