Employer not entitled to
credit for workers comp payments when settling
co-defendant is a public entity
In a case of first impression, the Appellate Division
held that where a public entity settles with an
injured plaintiff for an at-work injury, the
plaintiff's independent contractor-employer is not
entitled to a credit for workers compensation
payments in a subsequent indemnity suit by the public
entity. In Serpa v. New Jersey Transit, a
construction worker was severely injured while
working on a train station owned by New Jersey
Transit -- a publicly owned concern. He received some
$900,000 in workers' compensation payments from his
employer, the general contractor for the job. New
Jersey Transit paid the plaintiff $1.5 million to
settle a personal injury suit, wherein the employer
was named as a third-party defendant on an indemnity
claim. The employer's attorney agreed on the record
that the $1.5 million was a reasonable settlement.
However, after being apportioned 85% of the fault at
trial on the indemnity issue, the employer sought a
credit for its workers compensation payments. The
trial court declined the requested relief and the
Appellate Division affirmed. The court held that
N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(e) precludes reimbursement to an
employer from a public entity tortfeasor. Rather, the
public entity or public employee receives a credit
for the workers compensation payments, if a judgment
is entered. Thus, in a settlement, a public entity
cannot reasonably be expected to pay full value for a
claim, knowing that if the case goes to trial, it
will receive a credit against the damage verdict for
the workers' compensation payments. This was not
accounted for by the employer in consenting to the
reasonableness of the settlement.
Ultimately, the lesson taught by Serpa for carriers
with insureds who work with public entities is that
the public entity's right to a credit for workers
compensation payments made to injured employees must
be taken into account before conceding as to whether
a settlement proposal is reasonable. In this case,
counsel for the employer should have argued that a
settlement of $600,000 was appropriate.