Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Schruefer

Moore, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an Order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County entering judgments in favor of the appellees in proceedings on remand after the filing of the mandate of this Court in Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Schruefer, 34 Md. App. 706 , 369 A. 2d 118 (1977). In the first appeal, this Court, in an opinion by Judge Lowe, rejected all claims of error at a bench trial of a wrongful death action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Mitchell, J.), wherein the following plaintiffs received judgments against the defendant, Great Coastal: 1) Darlin Sue Schruefer (surviving spouse and mother and next friend of two infant children) _ $350,000; 2) Richard Lynn Schruefer (child of the decedent) _ $100,000; 3) Barbara Ann Schruefer (child of the decedent) _ $100,000; ⁹⁰ 4) Shasta Beverages, Inc. (employer and owner of truck operated by decedent) _ $ 18,100.02; 5) Travelers Insurance Company (workmen’s compensation carrier, intervenor) _ $ 54,500. We found, however, that the workmen’s compensation insurer’s right to reimbursement under Md. Code, art. 101 § 58 was one of subrogation and, accordingly, that the trial judge erred in entering a separate judgment for Travelers.

Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Schruefer, supra, 34 Md. App. at 731 . We also found that although we were empowered under Maryland Rules 1070 and 1075 to alter or modify the judgment as to Travelers, we were unable to exercise this power for the reason that: “We [could not] tell if the trial court reduced the amount it would have awarded the widow and children by the amount it awarded Travelers, or if the award of the latter amount was in addition to what the widow and children would have received had the insurer not intervened. Inasmuch as this case was tried to the judge and not a jury, modification of the award on remand should pose no particular difficulty.” Id. But this was not the only reason.

As Judge Lowe went on to say: “A further reason why we are unable to modify the judgment is our confusion from the record over the proper amount due Travelers. It was awarded $54,500.00, the amount given in an interrogatory by the decedent’s employer as the total amount expended on workmen’s compensation. But the record also contains a letter from Travelers to the effect that it paid Darlin Sue Schruefer a total of $8,831.70 for funeral expenses and compensation. Whether the difference between the two sums reflects amounts paid to the deceased’s children, ⁹¹ amounts paid for purposes specified in § 36 of Art. 101, or amounts paid for other purposes, we are unable to say.

On remand the trial court should articulate the basis of the award in favor of Travelers. If necessary for clarification, the court may hear from counsel or witnesses on that limited issue. See Md. Rule 1071.” Id. at 731-32. (Emphasis added.) The mandate appended to the opinion and filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on March 11, 1977 was as follows: “Judgment in favor of Shasta Beverages affirmed; judgments in favor of Darlin Sue Schruefer, Richard Lynn Schruefer, Barbara Ann Schruefer and Travelers Indemnity Company vacated and remanded for modification and entry of proper judgments in accordance with this opinion----” (Emphasis added.) Proceedings on remand were conducted before Judge Mitchell on May 11, 1977, when counsel for the plaintiffs presented, over objection, an affidavit from Travelers Insurance Company disclosing that the insurer had paid, up to the time of the remand proceedings, total compensation in the amount of $16,623.27. 1 Thereafter, on May 31, 1977, Judge Mitchell entered an Order awarding the same judgments to Shasta Beverages, Inc. and the surviving children of the decedent, with interest from March 26, 1976 (the date of the original judgments) but providing as follows with respect to the recovery of Darlin Sue Schruefer: “Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Darlin Sue Schruefer, against the Defendant, Great Coastal Express, Inc., in the sum of $366,623.27, plus costs and interest from March 26,1976, on the $350,000.00 portion of said award that has been made to Darlin Sue Schruefer.

The remaining $16, 623.27portion of ⁹² said Judgment to be paid to the Travelers Insurance Co. without interest.” (Emphasis added.) On this appeal, Great Coastal Express raises two issues. It is contended (1) that the trial court erred in awarding interest on the judgments from March 26, 1976, instead of May 31, 1977, the date of the judgment from which this further appeal has been taken; and (2) that the addition of $16,623.27 to the judgment in favor of the surviving spouse is void “because outside the scope of this court’s mandate.” We find these contentions devoid of merit and we affirm. I (Effective Date of Interest) Under Maryland Rule 642, “Interest on Judgment,” the time as of which interest shall run is as follows: 1) Judgment by