Understanding Solidary Liability in Workers’ Compensation Claims: Contribution Between Successive Employers and Insurers
By: Charles Taylor Matthews
In workers’ compensation law, when an employee’s injury results from a combination of accidents involving different employers or insurers, the concept of solidary liability comes into play. Under Louisiana law, successive employers and their insurers may be jointly responsible for the full range of workers’ compensation benefits owed to an employee. This means that each employer or insurer can be held liable for the entire amount of compensation, and the employee may seek compensation from any or all of them.
Basis for Solidary Obligation
The principle of solidary liability applies when an employee’s injury is due to multiple accidents, whether they occur with different employers or insurers. If one accident is solely responsible for the employee’s disability, the employer and insurer at the time of that accident are liable for the benefits. However, if the disability results from a combination of accidents, or if a later accident aggravates a prior injury, then both the prior and subsequent employers or insurers share solidary liability for the benefits.
A prime example of this is the case of Daigle v. Lajet, Inc. In this case, the employee sustained a back injury during the first accident, for which one insurer, Travelers Insurance, was responsible. After a subsequent accident, another insurer, Home Insurance Company, became involved. The appellate court r concluded that both insurers were solidarity liable because both accidents contributed to the employee’s disability.
Similarly, in Fuentes v. Cellxion, Inc., the employee sustained separate injuries to her shoulder and wrist, each resulting from different accidents and covered by different insurers. Initially, the injuries were considered separate, with each insurer liable for its respective injury. However, when the employee developed Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), which the court determined was caused by both injuries, both insurers were found to be solidarity liable.
However, solidary obligations do not always arise from such complex cases. In Joyner v. Houston General Ins. Co., for instance, the court found that the employee’s two heart attacks, although occurring at different times, were separate events with distinct medical causes. Therefore, the insurers were not solidarity liable, and only the insurer at the time of the second heart attack was responsible for benefits.
Extinguishment of Solidary Obligation
For a solidary obligation to exist, the liability must be in effect both at the time of the initial accident and when benefits are sought. If the employee’s rights against a prior employer or insurer have been extinguished—whether through settlement, prescription, or forfeiture—no solidary obligation exists between the prior and subsequent employers or insurers.
For instance, in Schouest v. Franke, the plaintiff’s prior claim was settled before the second accident occurred. As a result, the second insurer was not entitled to contribution from the first employer or insurer, as no solidary obligation remained. Similarly, in Bledsoe v. Willowdale Country Club, the employee’s claim against the first insurer had prescribed by the time the second accident occurred, leading the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s ruling that both insurers were solidarity liable.
Conclusion
Understanding the nuances of solidary liability is crucial for both employers and insurers involved in workers’ compensation claims. Whether it arises from successive accidents or the aggravation of prior injuries, solidary liability ensures that employees can receive the full benefits they are owed, even if multiple employers or insurers are involved. However, the existence of this liability can be affected by settlements, prescription, and the specifics of the injury. Employers and insurers must stay informed about these rules to navigate the complexities of workers’ compensation claims and potential contribution issues effectively.
