Duro Paper Bag Manufacturing Co.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · Labor Law

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCivil ProcedureRule 12(f)motion to strikeinsufficient defenseworkers' compensationthird-party tortfeasor

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant for personal injuries allegedly caused by a collision between the plaintiff's truck and a truck operated by the defendant's agent. In its third defense, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had recovered workers' compensation benefits and that the employer had paid medical and hospital expenses, and further alleged that the plaintiff had presented no proof of notifying his employer of the filing of the action. Indiana Code § 40-1213 allowed an employee to sue a third-party tortfeasor notwithstanding payment of compensation, while requiring the employee to notify the employer and file proof of that notice in the action. The record showed that the plaintiff had filed an affidavit stating that he personally served notice on his employer when the action was filed.

Issue

Was the defendant's third defense legally sufficient where it alleged that the plaintiff had received workers' compensation payments and had not presented proof of notice to his employer under Indiana Code § 40-1213? More specifically, could a third-party tortfeasor invoke the statute's employer-notice provision as a defense when the plaintiff had filed proof of notice in the record?

Rule

Under Rule 12(f), a defense may be stricken if it is clearly insufficient as a matter of law. Under Indiana Code § 40-1213 as amended, payment of workers' compensation is not a bar to an employee's action against a third-party tortfeasor; the employee must notify the employer and file proof thereof in the action, and that duty is adequately fulfilled when proof of service is filed sufficiently early to allow the employer to protect its lien rights.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Indianapolis, Omar Vega was injured while making a delivery for his employer when a van owned by Prairie Lantern Logistics allegedly struck his truck. Omar accepted Indiana workers' compensation benefits and his employer paid his hospital bills, after which Omar sued Prairie Lantern Logistics for negligence.

Prairie Lantern Logistics pleads as an affirmative defense that Omar's receipt of compensation benefits and medical payments bars the negligence action. Omar moves to strike that defense under Rule 12(f). How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion states that under Indiana Code § 40-1213 as amended, payment of compensation by the employer is no bar to the employee's suit against a third-party tortfeasor. Because the defense is clearly insufficient as a matter of law, it may be stricken under Rule 12(f). (Derived from Duro Paper Bag Manufacturing Co. (n.d.).)