Opinion
No. 61968-3-I.
March 30, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 07-2-38634-3, Andrea A. Darvas, J., entered June 20, 2008.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Becker and Cox, JJ.
Bryon Boyersmith was injured in a car accident and received personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). After Boyersmith settled a claim against the tortfeasor, whose negligence was the sole proximate cause of the collision, State Farm filed a declaratory judgment action seeking reimbursement. The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. Boyersmith appeals, arguing there is a question of fact whether he was fully compensated and therefore required to reimburse State Farm. We disagree, and affirm.
BACKGROUND
Boyersmith was a passenger in a car driven by Emily Estrella. Estrella's car was struck by a car driven by Charles Collier. Estrella was killed and Boyersmith was injured. Collier's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the collision and resulting injuries.
Estrella was insured by State Farm. Her policy provided PIP coverage to Boyersmith, and State Farm paid Boyersmith PIP benefits of $61,426.76, including $35,000 for medical payments and $26,426.76 for lost wages. The policy gives State Farm a right to reimbursement if the insured is fully compensated.
The applicable portion of the policy provides:
3. Our Right to Recover Our Payments
. . . .
c. Under personal injury protection and underinsured motor vehicle coverages:
(1) we are subrogated to the extent of our payment to the right of recovery the injured person has against any party liable for the bodily injury.
(2) if the person to or for whom we have made payment has not recovered our payment from the party at fault, he or she shall:
(a) keep these rights in trust for us and do nothing to impair them;
(b) execute any legal papers we need; and
(c) when we ask, take action through our representative to recover our payments.
(3) if the person to or for whom we make payment recovers from any party liable for the bodily injury, that person shall hold in trust for us the proceeds of the recovery, and reimburse us to the extent of our payment.
d. Under all other coverages, the right of recovery of any party we may pay passes to us. Such party shall:
(1) not hurt our right to recovery; and
(2) help us get our money back.
Our right to recover our payments applies only after the insured has been fully compensated for the bodily injury, property damage or loss.
Clerk's Papers at 4-5. The record does not include a copy of the policy.
Collier was insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, with a liability limit of $2 million. Boyersmith presented Liberty Mutual with a demand letter claiming $310,045 in special damages, and eventually settled his claims against Collier for $690,000. Boyersmith gave State Farm no prior notice of the settlement.
This figure was broken down as follows:
Boyersmith's attorney then prepared a "settlement disbursement accounting" that included the $61,426.76 in payments made by State Farm. The parties agree that, if State Farm is entitled to reimbursement, it is entitled to recover $40,951.17, representing the amount of its PIP payments less a deduction for attorney fees under Mahler v. Szucs.
135 Wn.2d 398, 957 P.2d 632 (1998).
State Farm filed a complaint seeking a judgment declaring that it is entitled to recover that amount. Boyersmith's answer admitted the facts alleged in the complaint, but asserted that State Farm did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted because State Farm had "failed to show clearly and convincingly" that Boyersmith had been fully compensated by the settlement. Boyersmith did not assert that he had not been fully compensated.
Clerk's Papers at 9.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. Relying on Boyersmith's answer and the settlement agreement, State Farm argued Boyersmith had been fully compensated as a matter of law because he accepted a settlement well in excess of his claimed special damages and well below the tortfeasor's liability limits, and because he prejudiced State Farm's ability to recover from the tortfeasor directly. In response, Boyersmith rested on his argument that State Farm failed to prove he had been fully compensated, but produced no evidence of his own and did not even assert he had not been fully compensated.
The court granted State Farm's motion and dismissed. Boyersmith appeals.
DISCUSSION
We apply the usual standard of review on summary judgment.
Summary judgment is affirmed when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Vallandigham v. Clover Park Sch.Dist. No. 400, 154 Wn.2d 16, 26, 109 P.3d 805 (2005); CR 56(c). All facts and reasonable inferences are considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and summary judgment is appropriate only if, from all the evidence, reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion. Id. The burden is on the moving party to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Id. "`If the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party must present evidence that demonstrates that material facts are in dispute.'" Id. ( quoting Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass'n Bd. Of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 515-16, 799 P.2d 250 (1990)). Summary judgment is proper if the nonmoving party fails to do so. Id.
Once an insured is "fully compensated for his loss," an insurer may seek an offset, subrogation, or reimbursement for PIP benefits already paid. If Boyersmith was fully compensated, reimbursement is required. The issue here is whether, on this record, full compensation is a jury question.
Sherry v. Financial Indem. Co., 160 Wn.2d 611, 618, 160 P.3d 31 (2007).
Boyersmith's claim against Collier was straightforward and involved no issues of liability. State Farm showed that Boyersmith settled for more than twice his claimed special damages and more than $1 million below the liability limits. The natural inference from this evidence is that Boyersmith was fully compensated by the settlement.
Boyersmith's contention is that in every case, some adjudication of total damages is required against which the right to reimbursement can be measured. We disagree. The reasonable inference from the evidence presented by State Farm required Boyersmith to present some evidence that the inference was incorrect and a trial was necessary. He did not. Summary judgment was therefore proper.
Given our disposition, we need not address State Farm's prejudice argument.
Affirmed.
Personal Property $ 2,500.00 Past Medical Expenses 148,221.07 Drugs and out of pocket expenses 3,445.38 COBRA expense 3,399.40 Wage Loss 107,479.15 Future Wage Loss 45,000.00 SPECIAL DAMAGES TOTAL $310,045.00 Clerk's Papers at 5.