Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102 (2026)

Employee or employer suits against third persons causing injury; notice of filing

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§1102. Employee or employer suits against third persons causing injury; notice of filing

A.(1) If either the employee or his dependent or the employer or insurer brings suit against a third person as provided in R.S. 23:1101, he shall forthwith notify the other in writing of such fact and of the name of the court in which the suit is filed, and such other may intervene as party plaintiff in the suit.

(2) Any dispute between the employer and the employee regarding the calculation of the employer's credit may be filed with the office of workers' compensation and tried before a workers' compensation judge. However, any determination of the employer's credit shall not affect any rights granted to the employer or the employee pursuant to R.S. 23:1103(C).

B. If a compromise with such third person is made by the employee or his dependents, the employer or insurer shall be liable to the employee or his dependents for any benefits under this Chapter which are in excess of the full amount paid by such third person, only after the employer or the insurer receives a dollar for dollar credit against the full amount paid in compromise, less attorney fees and costs paid by the employee in prosecution of the third party claim and only if written approval of such compromise is obtained from the employer or insurer by the employee or his dependent, at the time of or prior to such compromise. Written approval of the compromise must be obtained from the employer if the employer is self-insured, either in whole or in part. If the employee or his dependent fails to notify the employer or insurer of the suit against the third person or fails to obtain written approval of the compromise from the employer and insurer at the time of or prior to such compromise, the employee or his dependent shall forfeit the right to future compensation, including medical expenses. Notwithstanding the failure of the employer to approve such compromise, the employee's or dependent's right to future compensation in excess of the amount recovered from the compromise shall be reserved upon payment to the employer or insurer of the total amount of compensation benefits, and medical benefits, previously paid to or on behalf of the employee, exclusive of attorney fees arising out of the compromise; except in no event shall the amount paid to the employer or insurer exceed fifty percent of the total amount recovered from the compromise. Such reservation shall only apply after the employer or insurer receives a dollar for dollar credit against the full amount paid in compromise, less attorney fees and costs paid by the employee in prosecution of the third party claim.

C.(1) When a suit has been filed against a third party defendant in which the employer or his insurer has intervened, if the third party defendant or his insurer fails to obtain written approval of the compromise from the employer or his insurer at the time of or prior to such compromise and the employee fails to pay to the employer or his insurer the total amount of compensation benefits and medical benefits out of the funds received as a result of the compromise, the third party defendant or his insurer shall be required to reimburse the employer or his insurer to the extent of the total amount of compensation benefits and medical benefits previously paid to or on behalf of the employee to the extent said amounts have not been previously paid to the employer or his insurer by the employee pursuant to the provisions of Subsection B of this Section. Notwithstanding such payment, all rights of the employer or his insurer to assert the defense provided herein against the employee's claim for future compensation or medical benefits shall be reserved.

(2) Nothing herein shall be interpreted to affect the rights of the employer or his insurer to otherwise seek reimbursement for past or future compensation benefits and medical benefits against a third party defendant or his insurer without regard to the actions of the employee on whose behalf said compensation and medical benefits were paid.

(3) Repealed by Acts 1989, No. 454, §10, eff. Jan. 1, 1990.

Amended by Acts 1983, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 1, §1, eff. July 1, 1983. Acts 1984, No. 852, §1; Acts 1985, No. 926, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986; Acts 1989, No. 454, §§4, 10, eff. Jan. 1, 1990; Acts 1997, No. 1354, §1, eff. July 15, 1997; Acts 2005, No. 257, §1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 212 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: City of DeQuincy v. Henry, 62 So. 3d 43 (La. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of DeQuincy v. Henry, 62 So. 3d 43 (La. 2011). · cites it 47× “” La.Rev.Stat. § 23:1102, “Historical Notes” (emphasis added).”

Faught v. Ryder/p I E Nationwide, Inc., 543 So. 2d 918 (La. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 21× “SETTLEMENT OF TORT CLAIM WITHOUT EMPLOYER APPROVAL Act 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1983 drastically revised several sections of the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Law, including LSA-R.S. 23:1102. The revision has been criticized roundly by Mssrs.”

Riehm v. Kellogg, 520 So. 2d 1169 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 24× “LSA-R.S. 23:1102(A) provides that an employee or his dependent who files a tort action against third parties must notify the employer or its compensation insurer in writing to afford an opportunity to the compensation insurer to intervene for reimbursement of compensation…”

HOUSTON GEN. INS. v. Com. Union Ins., 682 So. 2d 1341 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 21× “[2] On March 27, 1991, Houston General filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was not notified of the Bruce suit, as required by LSA-R.S. 23:1102 A. Attached to its motion and memorandum in support thereof were the petition for damages filed in the Bruce suit and…”

Miller v. JP Owen Co., Inc., 509 So. 2d 1038 (La. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 14× “R.S. 23:1102 could not be applied retroactively to these lawsuits.”

Roche v. Big Moose Oil Field Truck Serv., 381 So. 2d 396 (La. 1980). · cites it 7× “2) Whether plaintiff under R.S. 23:1102 is required to intervene in the prior suit filed by the workman's compensation insurer against the tortfeasor rather than proceed in her own separate suit? Plaintiff Alice C.”

Lavergne v. Quality Fabricators of Eunice, Inc., 888 So. 2d 1147 (La. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 15× “R.S. 23:1102(0(1). The trial court denied Eagle Pacific leave to file its supplemental petition of intervention.”

Babin v. Saturn Eng'g Corp., 501 So. 2d 857 (La. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 11× “Shell Oil Company objected to the settlement, and a provision was read into the record of the settlement whereby the settlement funds would be escrowed pending a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction of the rights of Shell Oil Company to veto any settlement…”

Jeansonne v. Am. Native Const., 710 So. 2d 306 (La. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 14× “R.S. 23:1102, which provides the employer a defense against the employee's assertion that certain payments of benefits or medical expenses are owed, rather than La.”

Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Weaver, 219 So. 3d 442 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “R.S. 23:1102(0(1). On July 12, 2016, Weaver filed a peremptory exception of res judicata alleging that in the prior suit “the action was between the same parties on the same cause of action as this action[,] and that Liberty Mutual’s claim in the tort action had been resolved…”

Prevost v. Jobbers Oil Transp. Co., 665 So. 2d 400 (La. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 9× “23:1102 B provided: If compromise with such third person is made by the employee or his dependent, the employer or insurer shall be liable for compensation in excess of the amount recovered against such third person only if written approval of such compromise is obtained from…”

Darbonne v. M&M Right of Way Contractors, 693 So. 2d 299 (La. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “R.S. 23:1102. To its summary judgment motion, M & M attached a copy of the final judgment rendered in Darbonne's tort action, as well as Darbonne's admission that the only written correspondence he had sent to M & M were "the pleadings filed in this workers' compensation…”

Show all 212 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(0) — 1 case

Perilloux v. Howard P. Foley Co., 553 So. 2d 996 (La. Ct. App. 1989).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(13) — 1 case

Haynes v. United Parcel Serv., 908 So. 2d 1242 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(33) — 1 case

City of DeQuincy v. Henry, 62 So. 3d 43 (La. 2011). “” La.Rev.Stat. § 23:1102, “Historical Notes” (emphasis added).”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(A) — 28 cases

Norris v. Goeders, 652 So. 2d 144 (La. Ct. App. 1995).

Moody v. Arabie, 498 So. 2d 1081 (La. 1986).

Scott v. Barclay's Amer. Leasing Serv., 506 So. 2d 823 (La. Ct. App. 1987).

Bergeron v. Williams, 764 So. 2d 1084 (La. Ct. App. 2000).

Louisiana Workers' Comp. Corp. v. Landry, 92 So. 3d 1018 (La. Ct. App. 2012).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(A)(1) — 10 cases

Haynes v. United Parcel Serv., 933 So. 2d 765 (La. 2006).

Penton v. Castellano, 169 So. 3d 739 (La. Ct. App. 2015).

Freeman v. Elliott Co., 34 So. 3d 344 (La. Ct. App. 2010).

Raymond v. Video Inspection Servs., Inc., 16 So. 3d 439 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

Mitchell v. Abernathy, 815 So. 2d 110 (La. Ct. App. 2002).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(A)(2) — 2 cases

Tolbird v. Wyble, 892 So. 2d 103 (La. Ct. App. 2004).

Burns v. Apache Corp., 902 So. 2d 1160 (La. Ct. App. 2005).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(A)(B) — 2 cases

Williams v. Gen. Motors Corp., 639 So. 2d 275 (La. Ct. App. 1994).

Charity Hosp. of Louisiana v. Band, 593 So. 2d 1392 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(B) — 58 cases

Faught v. Ryder/p I E Nationwide, Inc., 543 So. 2d 918 (La. Ct. App. 1989). “SETTLEMENT OF TORT CLAIM WITHOUT EMPLOYER APPROVAL Act 1 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1983 drastically revised several sections of the Louisiana Worker's Compensation Law, including LSA-R.S. 23:1102. The revision has been criticized roundly by Mssrs.”

Riehm v. Kellogg, 520 So. 2d 1169 (La. Ct. App. 1988). “LSA-R.S. 23:1102(A) provides that an employee or his dependent who files a tort action against third parties must notify the employer or its compensation insurer in writing to afford an opportunity to the compensation insurer to intervene for reimbursement of compensation…”

City of DeQuincy v. Henry, 62 So. 3d 43 (La. 2011). “” La.Rev.Stat. § 23:1102, “Historical Notes” (emphasis added).”

Jeansonne v. Am. Native Const., 710 So. 2d 306 (La. Ct. App. 1998). “R.S. 23:1102, which provides the employer a defense against the employee's assertion that certain payments of benefits or medical expenses are owed, rather than La.”

Ryan v. Esif/Ryan Constr., 88 So. 3d 719 (La. Ct. App. 2012).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(C) — 14 cases

Miller v. JP Owen Co., Inc., 509 So. 2d 1038 (La. Ct. App. 1987). “R.S. 23:1102 could not be applied retroactively to these lawsuits.”

Dietz v. Guichard Drilling Co., 626 So. 2d 79 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

Percle v. Oubre, 564 So. 2d 352 (La. Ct. App. 1990).

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Anderson, 533 So. 2d 118 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(C)(1) — 10 cases

Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Weaver, 219 So. 3d 442 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 23:1102(0(1). On July 12, 2016, Weaver filed a peremptory exception of res judicata alleging that in the prior suit “the action was between the same parties on the same cause of action as this action[,] and that Liberty Mutual’s claim in the tort action had been resolved…”

Miller v. JP Owen Co., Inc., 509 So. 2d 1038 (La. Ct. App. 1987). “R.S. 23:1102 could not be applied retroactively to these lawsuits.”

Ramos v. SW La. Elec. Membership Corp., 536 So. 2d 713 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Prevost v. Jobbers Oil Transp. Co., 665 So. 2d 400 (La. Ct. App. 1995). “23:1102 B provided: If compromise with such third person is made by the employee or his dependent, the employer or insurer shall be liable for compensation in excess of the amount recovered against such third person only if written approval of such compromise is obtained from…”

Lavergne v. Quality Fabricators of Eunice, Inc., 888 So. 2d 1147 (La. Ct. App. 2004). “R.S. 23:1102(0(1). The trial court denied Eagle Pacific leave to file its supplemental petition of intervention.”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(C)(2) — 4 cases

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith, 609 So. 2d 809 (La. 1992).

Nicholes v. St. Helena Par. Police Jury, 604 So. 2d 1023 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith, 609 So. 2d 809 (La. 1992).

Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 569 So. 2d 1078 (La. Ct. App. 1990).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(C)(4) — 2 cases

Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 569 So. 2d 1078 (La. Ct. App. 1990).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1102(c) — 1 case

Roger v. Est. of Moulton, 494 So. 2d 1226 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.