STATEWIDE INSURANCE FUND, ETC. VS. OWL CONTRACTING VS. Â DANIEL HILL(L-0347-14, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4669-15T2
STATEWIDE INSURANCE
FUND, as subrogee of the
COUNTY OF WARREN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OWL CONTRACTING,
Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DANIEL HILL,
Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
_________________________________________
Argued September 7, 2017 – Decided September 27, 2017
Before Judges Rothstadt and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Warren County, Docket
No. L-0347-14.
Richard P. Cushing argued the cause for
appellant (Gebhardt & Kiefer, PC, attorneys;
Tracy B. Bussel, on the briefs).
Christopher Bally argued the cause for
respondent Owl Contracting (Law Office of
Joseph Carolan, attorneys; Mr. Bally and
George H. Sly, Jr., on the brief).
Christopher M. Troxell argued the cause for
respondent Daniel Hill.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Statewide Insurance Fund, as subrogee of the County
of Warren, appeals from the Law Division's entry of summary
judgment dismissing its complaint for indemnification from
defendant/third-party plaintiff, Owl Contracting. Statewide's
complaint alleged that, as Warren County's workers' compensation
carrier, it was entitled to recover sums it paid in satisfaction
of third-party defendant Daniel Hill's workers' compensation claim
in excess of the amounts Statewide recovered from Hill's settlement
with Owl in an earlier third-party action. Statewide argued that
it was entitled to the additional sums based upon an
indemnification clause in the construction contract between Warren
County and Owl. According to its complaint, Statewide sought
amounts in excess of those it was entitled to recover under the
Workers' Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -146.
The motion judge disagreed, finding Statewide's claim was
barred by virtue of Statewide's receipt of funds from the
settlement reached between Hill and Owl in satisfaction of its
2 A-4669-15T2
lien under the provisions of the WCA.1 Moreover, to the extent
Statewide believed it was entitled to anything more, it was
obligated to join in the action between Hill and Owl to assert its
claim as required by the entire controversy doctrine. See R.
4:30A.
On appeal, Statewide argues that the motion judge erred by
denying it a trial on the issue of Owl's employee's negligence
before it determined whether Statewide was entitled to
indemnification. It also contends the judge erred by relying upon
the settlement between Hill and Owl and the Entire Controversy
Doctrine as reasons for denying Statewide the benefit of the
indemnification under Owl's agreement with Warren County.
The facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to
Statewide, see Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 213 N.J.
573, 577 (2013) (citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995)), are undisputed and can be summarized
as follows. Hill's claim arose from injuries he sustained while
employed by Warren County when he was struck by a vehicle owned
by Owl. At the time of the accident, Owl was performing
construction services for Warren County pursuant to a written
agreement. The agreement contained an indemnification clause in
1
N.J.S.A. 34:15-40(b),(e) and (g).
3 A-4669-15T2
which Owl held Warren County harmless and agreed to indemnify it
for any claims arising from Owl's negligence.
Hill filed a workers' compensation claim and Statewide made
payments to and on behalf of Hill for his injuries and their
treatment. He also filed a lawsuit against Owl that they settled.
Statewide received a payment from the settlement proceeds in
satisfaction of its lien, in accordance with the WCA. After the
settlement, Hill continued treatment and Statewide made partial
payments to Hill's medical providers also as required by the WCA.
Statewide filed this action seeking reimbursement from Owl for the
amounts it paid in excess of the amounts it received from Hill's
settlement.
Applying the legal principles governing our de novo review
where, as here, there is no genuine issue of material fact and
"only a question of law remains," Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n v.
Adria Towers, LLC, 226 N.J. 403, 414-15 (2016), we conclude
Statewide's contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Suffice it
to say, Statewide's entitlement to recover any amounts from the
parties to this action was governed solely by the WCA. Warren
County's agreement with Owl did not entitle Statewide to anything
more.
Affirmed.
4 A-4669-15T2