
Special Arbitration, a long-existing, highly efficient and cost-effective venue for resolving workers’ compensation subrogation liens, is being challenged as an appropriate forum in which to resolve lien disputes. As a result, Special Arbitration may soon be an unavailable forum for workers’ compensation insurance carriers and employers in some states.
Arbitration Forums, Inc. (AF) is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1943 by the insurance industry for the purpose of successfully resolving disputes among its member organizations. Within AF, the Special Arbitration Forum (Special Forum) resolves workers’ compensation subrogation claims against potentially responsible third parties that do not exceed $250,000.00.
Bringing workers’ compensation subrogation claims in the Special Forum has many benefits including:
- the cost is a fraction of litigating a case in court;
- each matter is decided by knowledgeable arbitrators;
- decisions are rendered in a fraction of the time it takes to litigate a claim in court; and
- final decisions are binding and proceedings can be initiated with little-to-no participation from the injured worker.
However, like most arbitration forums, the authority AF has over its members is based on the members’ agreement and not on an external body of law. Accordingly, issues arise when jurisdictional issues and arbitration awards from the Special Forum contradict benefit states’ workers’ compensation statutes. Recently, there have been challenges to AF’s ability to decide disputes amongst its signatory members in the Special Arbitration arena.
In a recent Wisconsin case, Erie Insurance Exchange (Erie) filed a workers’ compensation subrogation matter in AF against a member company, EMC Property & Casualty Company (EMC), to recoup its lien within the jurisdictional limits. EMC asserted several affirmative defenses, including arguing that the Wisconsin Circuit Court, not AF, was the proper forum to decide the matter. AF ruled in Erie’s favor, rejecting EMC’s jurisdictional arguments and permitting the Special Forum action to proceed.
In response, EMC filed a declaratory judgment action in Wisconsin Circuit Court, arguing that, under §102.29 of Wisconsin’s workers’ compensation statute – which requires the inclusion of the injured worker in any subrogation action in the state – Wisconsin’s Circuit Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and, thus, is the proper forum.
This matter remains pending but is troubling because, if successful, EMC will have subverted the very arbitration process it submitted to via a contractual obligation. Leaving the potential merits of the underlying case aside, this case highlights an attempt by a member company to try and get an additional “bite at the apple." If EMC is successful, the court’s decision could seriously hinder the use of AF in Wisconsin and other states that, like Wisconsin, have statutes which include the injured worker in the language of the statute despite being written solely to protect the carriers’ lien reimbursement. In order to overcome jurisdictional challenges like the one raised by EMC, insurers should argue that the court’s analysis in Williams v. Capital Hospice, 783 S.E.2d 67 (Va. App. 2016), further discussed below, not the analysis advocated by EMC, is the proper analysis.
In Williams, Companion Insurance Company (Companion) sought arbitration against Victoria Insurance Company (Victoria) for reimbursement of a workers’ compensation lien arising from benefits paid as the result of an automobile accident. In contrast to the Erie matter, in Williams, the injured worker sought to collect a portion of the workers’ compensation lien award recovered by Companion from Victoria pursuant to Virginia’s workers’ compensation statute. The Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission agreed. However, on appeal, the Virginia Court of Appeals held that the workers’ compensation carrier was entitled to keep the full amount of the arbitration award.
In so holding, the Virginia Court of Appeals found that the statute cited by the injured worker did not contemplate the approval of an arbitration award by the Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction, first because the injured worker’s tort rights were maintained and the arbitration award for lien reimbursement had no impact on the third party rights of the worker. Moreover, the court found that the injured worker had no interest in Companion’s lien. This well-reasoned decision by the court is instructive and should be used as a blueprint not only for fee based disputes but also in forum contests like that found in the Erie case in Wisconsin and any other jurisdiction that seeks to marginalize or eliminate the use of AF.
Virginia’s workers’ compensation reimbursement framework remains subrogation-friendly with regard to AF. The compelling issue to be determined is whether a Special Forum award to a workers’ compensation carrier will be upheld on judicial review where, arguably, AF’s jurisdiction or its award is inconsistent with the carrier’s right to recover under an individual state’s particular workers’ compensation statute.
In summary, the Williams decision offers a positive framework for courts in different jurisdictions to analyze challenges to AF’s jurisdiction and arbitration awards AF makes to workers’ compensation carriers in third party subrogation cases. If the Williams approach is followed, Special Arbitration will remain a long term, viable solution for member carriers to pursue the resolution of lien claims up to $250,000.00. However, despite the fact that the fundamental purpose of workers’ compensation subrogation statutes is lien reimbursement to the carrier, in jurisdictions where workers’ compensation subrogation statutes include language purporting to provide heightened protections to injured workers, we expect, as in the Erie case, additional challenges.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Minnesota
- California
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- CPSC Warning
- Rhode Island
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Evidence
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Arkansas
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Product Liability
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
Tags
- Subrogation
- Products Liability
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- California
- Subro Sessions
- Experts
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Experts – Daubert
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Contracts
- Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts - Reliability
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Certificate of Merit
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- New York
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- Experts – Qualifications
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Arizona
- Sutton Doctrine
- West Virginia
- Indiana
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Evidence
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Connecticut
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Limitation of Liability
- Apportionment
- Expert Qualifications
- Exculpatory Clause
- Amazon
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Third Party
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Accepted Work
- Malfunction Theory
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Inverse Condemnation
- Jury Instructions
- Food and Beverage
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Medical Benefits
- Montreal Convention
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
Authors
Archives
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013