Campbell v. Kovalev et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the 10 MOTION to Intervene is GRANTED as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 7/23/2013. (AHI )

FILED
2013 Jul-23 PM 02:01
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN A. CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NIKOLAI N. KOVALEV,
ALEKSEI KALETAYEV and
A & P GROUP CORP.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. C-13-S-331-NW

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Steven Campbell, commenced this action against defendants, Nikolai
Kovalev, Aleksei Kaletayev, and A & P Group Corp., on February 19, 2013.1 Plaintiff
sustained injuries when defendants’ eighteen-wheel truck collided with plaintiff’s
work van.2 As a result of his injuries, plaintiff was paid workers compensation
benefits by his employer.3 This case is before the court on a motion to intervene, filed
by Alabama Home Builder’s Self-Insurers Fund (“Insurer”), the workers’
compensation fund for plaintiff’s employer, and New Hope Telephone Cooperative
(“Employer”), the plaintiff’s employer.4 The court finds that the motion to intervene

1

Doc. no. 1, Ex. 1 (Complaint).
2
See generally id.
3
Doc. no. 10-1 (Motion for Conditional Intervention ¶ 4).

4

Doc. no. 10 (Motion for Conditional Intervention).

is to be granted.
At the time plaintiff was injured, he was employed by New Hope Telephone
Cooperative, a company that is not a party to this action.5 Following his injury,
plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was paid by the Insurer.6
Plaintiff’s Employer and Insurer request that the court allow them to intervene in this
action to seek reimbursement from defendants for the payments made to plaintiff.7
Plaintiff has no objection to the intervention of his Employer and Insurer in this
case.8 Additionally, the Employer and Insurer only request conditional intervention,
“for the purpose of preserving and protecting the worker’s compensation lien which
said parties have with regard to any third-party recovery that is obtained by Steven A.
Campbell in this action.”9
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
(a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must
permit anyone to intervene who:
(1) is given an unconditional right to intervene by a
federal statute; or
(2) claims an interest in relating to the property or
5

See generally id.

6

Doc. no. 10-1 (Complaint in Intervention ¶ 4).

7

Id.

8

Doc. no. 14 (Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Intervene).

9

Doc. no. 10 (Motion for Conditional Intervention).
2

transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a
practical matter impair or impede the movant’s
ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties
adequately represent that interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(a)(1)-(2).
Here, no party is claiming that a federal statute gives Employer or Insurer the
right to intervene. Instead, both entities are requesting intervention for the purpose
of protecting their financial interest in the litigation pending before the court.
Alabama Code, § 25-5-11 provides the right to assert a subrogration lien for workers’
compensation benefits paid to an employee.
If the injured employee, or in case of death, his or her dependents,
recovers damages against the other party, the amount of the damages
recovered and collected shall be credited upon the liability of the
employer for compensation. If the damages recovered and collected are
in excess of the compensation payable under this chapter, there shall be
no further liability on the employer to pay compensation on account of
injury or death. To the extent of the recovery of damages against the
other party, the employer shall be entitled to reimbursement for the
amount of compensation theretofore paid on account of injury or death.
If the employee who recovers damages is receiving or entitled to receive
compensation for permanent total disability, then the employer shall be
entitled to reimbursement for the amount of compensation theretofore
paid . . .
Ala. Code § 25-5-11(a) (1975). Additionally, if an injured employee fails to file suit
within in the applicable statute of limitations, the employer or its insurance carrier will
be allowed six additional months “within which to bring a civil action against the
3

other party for damages on account of the injury or death.” Ala. Code § 25-5-11(d).
Furthermore, courts have found that “[t]he creation of [a] subrogation lien is a
sufficient interest to satisfy the first requirement of Rule 24(a).” Clifton v. Gainey
Transp. Services, Inc., 2008 WL 474428 *1 (S.D. Ga. 2008); see also Lee v. Genie
Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 3284873 (M.D. Ga. 2007).
Accordingly, Employer and Insurer request intervention in order to protect
their subrogation lien. There is no doubt that their financial interest is at the heart of
this litigation. If movants were denied intervention, they would be impeded from
protecting this financial interest. Additionally, no current parties within the suit
would adequately represent the interests of plaintiff’s employer or its insurance
company. Accordingly, this court finds Alabama Home Builder’s Self-Insurers Fund
and New Hope Telephone Cooperative may intervene as a matter of right, and the
motion to intervene is hereby GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2013.

______________________________
United States District Judge

4