 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Riley v. W.R. Grace & Company3/3/1999
ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is an action for attorney fees based on this Court's prior declaratory judgment in W.R. Grace & Company and Transportation Ins. Co. v. Karen Riley, WCC No. 9709- 7824. Transportation alleges that the prior judgment precludes Riley's current claim for attorney fees. It moves for summary judgment dismissing her petition.
Factual Background
The prior action was commenced by Transportation on September 10, 1997. (PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, W.R. Grace & Company and Transportation Ins. Co. v. Karen Riley, WCC No. 9709-7824.) The petition alleged that Karen's husband, Donald, contracted an occupational disease while working for W.R. Grace, which Transportation insured, and that in 1993 Donald entered into a full and final compromise settlement of his claim. (Id.) Under the settlement, Transportation paid Donald $85,000 in a lump sum. (Id.) On February 26, 1997, Donald died. Thereafter, Transportation commenced paying Karen $299 weekly, representing her "full, unreduced weekly rate." (Id., 6.) However, Transportation believed it was entitled to offset those benefits by that portion of the $85,000 which was attributable to periods of time after Donald's death and by social security payments made to Karen on account of Donald's death. (Id., 7.) It sought a declaratory judgment as to its entitlement to the offsets. (Id., Prayers.)
Upon the filing of the PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring Karen to respond, further requiring that the parties enter into and file an agreed statement of facts, and setting a briefing schedule. (ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (September 11, 1997).)
On October 1, 1997, the Court received and filed Karen's NOTICE OF REPRESENTA- TION AND RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (RESPONSE). In her RESPONSE,
Karen admitted that Donald had received the $85,000 settlement but disputed that Transportation was entitled to an offset for any portion of the settlement or for social security benefits. She requested that the Court determine the amount of weekly benefits due her and award her "costs and attorney fees." (RESPONSE, Prayer 2.)
Thereafter, the parties filed an AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS (October 23, 1997) and proceeded with briefing of the issues raised by the petition. Neither party briefed Karen's attorney fee request.
On March 23, 1998, the Court entered a DECLARATORY JUDGMENT finding that Transportation is entitled to offset those portions of its settlement with Donald which are attributable to the period of time after Donald's death but is not entitled to an offset for social security benefits. The Court did not consider Karen's request for attorney fees, indeed I entirely overlooked the request.
On May 29, 1998, the DECLARATORY JUDGMENT was certified as final for purposes of appeal. (CERTIFICATION OF JUDGMENT.) On September 30, 1998, the Court received and filed the present petition for attorney fees.
Discussion
Transportation argues that the present petition is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. It contends that all four elements required for the application of the doctrine are met.
The following four elements must be satisfied in order to apply the doctrine of res judicata: (1) the parties or their privies must be the same; (2) the subject matter of the action must be the same; (3) the issues must be the same and relate to the same subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons must be the same in reference to the subject matter and to the issues. Parini v. Mi
Page 1 2 3 Montana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|