Home Insurance v. Southern California Rapid Transit District
Before: Johnson
Opinion
JOHNSON, J. The law is clearly established that when an employer or its insurer files a timely action against a tortfeasor to recover workers’ compensation paid to an injured employee, the employee may intervene to [524]recover damages for personal injury even if the complaint in intervention is not filed within the statute of limitations. (Jordan v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 202 [172 Cal.Rptr. 30]; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Matulich (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 528 [131 P.2d 21]; State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Allen (1930) 104 Cal.App.400 [285 P. 1053].)
The issue in the case before us is whether there should be an exception to this well-established rule where the tortfeasor is a government entity. We can find no basis for carving out such an exception and, therefore, conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the employee’s complaint against the Southern California Rapid Transit District.
Facts and Proceedings Below
Bart Lee Matthews was injured when a Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) bus entered an intersection on a red light and struck his vehicle. Matthews was in the course and scope of his employment and driving a vehicle owned by his employer, API Alarm Systems.
Plaintiff Home Insurance Company insured API Alarm Systems for workers’ compensation. On April 25, 1985, the insurer’s representatives presented a claim for damages to the RTD. This claim was timely filed within the 100 days required by the claims statute (Gov. Code, § 911.2) and notified the RTD that API Alarm’s employee, Bart Lee Matthews, was injured in the collision involving the RTD’s bus. The RTD never acted on this claim.
On May 2, 1985, Matthews filed a workers’ compensation claim against his employer, API Alarm Systems, and on May 16, 1985, presented a claim for damages to the RTD. This claim, also, was timely filed within the 100 days required by the claims statute and was rejected by the RTD on June 4, 1985.
On February 14, 1986, Home Insurance filed its complaint for damages resulting from the accident. This complaint was timely filed pursuant to Government Code section 945.6, subdivision (a)(2).
[525]
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)