Hughes

Hughes v. Argonaut Insurance Company

Good Law
105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 877·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 280·2001 Daily Journal DAR 3677·88 Cal. App. 4th 517·66 Cal. Comp. Cases 454
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 2001A090292California4,365 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reardon, J.

The doctrine of workers’ compensation exclusivity is a frequent subject of judicial tweaking. Like the law of search and seizure, the variety of fact patterns seems never ending, and each variation presents yet another opportunity for judicial review. This time we examine whether a claimant may sue her employer’s insurance carrier in superior court for what amounts to the insurer’s purported mishandling of its lien on the claimant’s settlement with a third party tortfeasor. We conclude she may not and accordingly affirm the judgment of dismissal.

I. Background

As this appeal comes to us from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, we accept the material allegations of the complaint as true. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 92 , 831 P.2d 317 ].) The third amended complaint of appellant Michelle Hughes reveals the following: Hughes was an employee of Southern Auto Supply. Respondent Argonaut Insurance Company (Argonaut) provided workers’ compensation insurance to the employer. On December 8, 1997, while on the job, Hughes was in an automobile accident with a third party. Argonaut…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.