United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT
T. DAWSON SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Now
before the Court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 40) filed by Intervenor XL Specialty Insurance
Company (XL herein). Plaintiff Tyler Sparks and Defendant
Riverwood Investments, LLC d/b/a Riverwood Inn (Riverwood
Inn) have each filed a response in opposition to the motion
(ECF Nos. 59, 61), and Intervenor has replied (ECF Nos. 65,
66). The matter is now ripe for review.
Plaintiffs
Tyler and Cydney Sparks, husband and wife, are residents of
Louisiana, and they bring this diversity action alleging
negligence and claiming damages against Defendant Riverwood
Inn. It is alleged in the complaint that, during his stay at
Riverwood Inn, located in Arkansas, a stairway attached to
the motel structure collapsed beneath Plaintiff Tyler Sparks
causing him to fall and sustain serious bodily injury.
Because Plaintiff was in Arkansas working on assignment for
his Louisiana-based employer, Plaintiff filed a workers'
compensation claim pursuant to the Louisiana Workers'
Compensation Act. Intervenor XL is the workers'
compensation insurer for Plaintiff's claim, and XL
entered this case in hopes of recovering subrogation for
benefits paid to Plaintiff. XL moves for partial summary
judgment seeking this Court's determination that: (1)
Louisiana law applies to its subrogation rights; and (2)
under Louisiana law, XL is entitled to dollar-for-dollar
reimbursement for any amounts it has paid out of any recovery
Plaintiff obtains against Riverwood Inn. For the reasons
stated herein, the motion will be granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
material facts relevant to XL's subrogation claim are not
in dispute, and they are recounted here in a light most
favorable to the non-moving parties. On or about July 30,
2016, Plaintiff Tyler Sparks was a paying guest of the
Riverwood Inn. As Plaintiff attempted to walk to his motel
room up a stairway connecting the first and second floor of
the motel, a portion of the stairs gave way causing Plaintiff
to fall and sustain injury to his right foot and lumbar
spine. The Riverwood Inn, located in Glenwood, Arkansas, is
owned and operated by Defendant Riverwood Investments, LLC,
an Arkansas limited liability company. At the time of the
incident, Plaintiff lived in Evangeline Parish, Louisiana,
and was in Arkansas working on assignment for T & D
Solutions, LLC (Employer), a Louisiana limited liability
company based in Alexandria, Louisiana. Plaintiff was hired
in Louisiana and briefly trained there. The terms of
Plaintiff's employment agreement made clear that Employer
was responsible for sending Plaintiff to Arkansas and paying
for his travel and lodging expenses.
Following
the injury, Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim
pursuant to the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act. XL
is the workers' compensation insurer for Plaintiff's
claim. XL asserts that as of July 2019, it has paid at least
$8, 000 for Plaintiff's medical expenses and more than
$79, 000 for past wage loss benefits arising from the
incident. According to XL, the claim remains open, and XL
continues to pay Plaintiff wage benefits of $593.59 per week
plus the costs of any additional incurred medical expenses.
On August 17, 2017, Plaintiffs Tyler and Cydney Sparks filed
this diversity lawsuit for damages against Riverwood Inn
alleging the Inn negligently failed to maintain the stairway
and caused injury to Plaintiffs.
XL
moved to intervene in this case as a matter of right
contending that, under both the insurance policy issued to
Employer and the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Act, XL
is entitled to recover subrogation from Riverwood, the
alleged tortfeasor whose negligence is responsible for
Plaintiff's injuries (ECF No. 31). In response to the
motion, Plaintiffs admitted XL is entitled to intervene but
made clear their intent to seek a ruling from the Court on
whether Arkansas or Louisiana law is controlling on XL's
subrogation claim. (ECF No. 33.) The motion to intervene was
granted with the order expressly stating, “the extent
of XL's participation in the trial of this matter and the
governing subrogation law will be determined prior to
trial.” (Order, July 17, 2019, ECF No. 34.) XL now
moves for partial summary judgment on the issues of law
governing its subrogation rights.
II.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that when a party
moves for summary judgment “[t]he court shall grant
summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a);
Krenik v. Cnty. of LeSueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th
Cir. 1995). The Supreme Court has issued the following
guidelines for trial courts to determine whether this
standard has been satisfied:
The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining
whether there is a need for trial-whether, in other words,
there are genuine factual issues that properly can be
resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably
be resolved in favor of either party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250
(1986); see also Agristor Leasing v. Farrow, 826
F.2d 732 (8th Cir. 1987); Niagara of Wis. Paper Corp. v.
Paper Indus. Union-Mgmt. Pension Fund, 800 F.2d
742, 746 (8th Cir. 1986). A fact is material only when its
resolution affects the outcome of the case.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute is genuine if
the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to
return a verdict for either party. Id. at 252. The
Court must view the evidence and the inferences that may be
reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Enter. Bank v. Magna
Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). The moving party
bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of
material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. Id. The nonmoving party must then
demonstrate the existence of specific facts in the record
that create a genuine issue for trial. Krenik, 47
F.3d at 957. A party opposing a properly supported motion for
summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or
denials but must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at
256.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Choice of Law
This
Court must decide which State's law - Arkansas or
Louisiana - governs the issues around XL's claim for
reimbursement of the workers' compensation benefits. XL
favors the application of Louisiana law in this case, because
it allows a dollar-for-dollar right of subrogation out of any
eventual recovery Plaintiff obtains from Riverwood Inn.
Plaintiff Tyler Sparks contends that Arkansas law should
apply to XL's subrogation rights. Arkansas has a
“made-whole doctrine, ” and if Plaintiff's
actual losses exceed the amount he recovers from Riverwood,
the application of Arkansas law could very well bar XL from
recouping anything. For its part, Riverwood Inn argues in
...