The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has certified the following question pursuant to Rule 18, Ala. R.App. P.: "Whether an employer's insurance carrier is entitled to be reimbursed for medical expenses from amounts recovered from a third party in a wrongful death action filed by the employee decedent's personal representative?" This Court accepted the question; we now answer it in the negative.

"On the morning of August 23, 2000, [Ronald D.] Trott, age 64, went to his job at Brinks, Inc. ('Brinks') in Birmingham where he was employed as a driver of armored trucks. On this particular day, Mr. Trott rode in the back of the truck with a co-employee, while two other employees rode in the front of the vehicle as they traveled to deliver bags of coins stored in the back of the truck to various locations.

"On Highway 72, about twelve miles outside of Huntsville, the driver of the truck ran off the side of the road causing the truck to overturn in an upside [down] position. During the rollover, Mr. Trott broke ten ribs, [his] right hip, left shoulder and cracked his backbone. While recovering from hip surgery, Mr. Trott's lung collapsed and he underwent another surgery. Ultimately it was determined that he suffered severe and irreversible internal injuries during the collision that resulted in his death on October 11, 2000. During the course of treatment, Mr. Trott incurred $415,098 of medical bills which were paid by his employer and/or its insurance carrier, [Liberty Mutual Insurance Company ('Liberty Mutual')].

"Joyce [P.] Trott, the widow of Mr. Trott [and the administratrix of Mr. Trott's estate], filed a wrongful death action against Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc. ('IMMI') on November 11, 2000 in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. In her complaint, Mrs. Trott maintains that her husband was securely belted in the rear suspension seat prior to and during the rollover incident and that the seatbelt, manufactured by the defendant IMMI, unlatched at some point during the rollover. Release of the belt, she claims, caused the traumatic and ultimately fatal injuries which would not have occurred had the seatbelt held.

"After the case was removed to this Court, Liberty Mutual was allowed to intervene as a party plaintiff in the underlying *Page 83 action to preserve its subrogation interest.

"Liberty Mutual contends that it is entitled to be reimbursed both for death benefits and medical expenses paid to Mrs. Trott from any amount recovered in a third party action against the defendant IMMI and for medical benefits paid on behalf of Mr. Trott during his lifetime. Mrs. Trott disputes only the right of reimbursement for medical benefits paid on behalf of Mr. Trott during his lifetime. She maintains that recovery for medical expenses in a wrongful death action is inconsistent both with Ala. Code, 1975 § 25-5-11 and with the principles of subrogation. . . ."

(Footnote omitted.)

In addition to providing employees and their dependents the right to maintain actions against third parties, §25-5-11(a) also provides an employer with a general right to be reimbursed out of any damages award for workers' compensation benefits it has paid. Alabama Code 1975, § 25-5-1(4), defines "employer" to include an employer's insurer; thus, the word "employer" in this opinion includes both Brinks, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. If an employer has paid workers' compensation benefits to an employee or death benefits to the dependents of a deceased employee, then the employer may be reimbursed for those benefits from any damages award received in the action against the third party: "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." Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-11(a).

This Court has held that § 25-5-11(a) allows an employer to intervene in a wrongful-death action to be reimbursed for benefits or compensation it paid. Ex parte Cincinnati Ins.Co., 689 So.2d 47 (Ala. 1997); Millers Mut. Ins. Ass'nv. Young, supra. Before 1992, § 25-5-11 allowed reimbursement only for "compensation," which this Court had concluded did not include medical expenses. See LibertyMut. Ins. Co. v. Manasco, 271 Ala. 124, 123 So.2d 527 (1960). Thus, although an employer could be reimbursed for any workers' compensation benefits or death benefits paid to the employee or the deceased employee's dependents, the employer could not be reimbursed for medical benefits expended to care for the injured employee. In 1992, § 25-5-11(a) was amended to add the following language, which is pertinent in the instant case: "For purposes of this amendatory act, the employer shall be entitled to subrogation for medical and vocational benefits expended by the employer on behalf of the employee." (emphasis added); see Ala. Acts 1992, No. 92-537, § 8 (effective May 19, 1992).¹ *Page 84

Trott argues that the word "subrogation" in § 25-6-11(a) refers to the equitable remedy of subrogation and that it includes all the various rights and defenses attached to that remedy. Under equitable subrogation, a subrogee (here, the employer) has no greater rights than the subrogor (the employee); thus, the subrogee is entitled to only those remedies to which the subrogor is entitled, and no greater remedies. The instant action is a wrongful-death action under Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-410. In such a case, the only recoverable damages are punitive damages intended to punish the tortfeasor for its actions — not to compensate the plaintiff. Medical expenses, such as those Liberty Mutual seeks to recover here, are compensatory in nature and are not recoverable by a plaintiff in a wrongful-death action. Thus, Trott argues, because she, as the representative of Ronald Trott's estate, could not recover damages from Indiana Mills and Manufacturing, Inc., for medical *Page 85 expenses, Liberty Mutual could not recover such damages either. In other words, Trott contends, Liberty Mutual cannot recover damages for medical expenses in a wrongful-death action when Trott herself cannot recover such expenses.

"The fundamental principle of statutory construction is that words in a statute must be given their plain meaning."Mobile Infirmary Med Ctr. v. Hodgen, 884 So.2d 801,814 (Ala. 2003). "When a court construes a statute, `[w]ords used in [the] statute must be given their natural, plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, and where plain language is used a court is bound to interpret that language to mean exactly what it says.'" Ex parte Berryhill,801 So.2d 7, 10 (Ala. 2001) (quoting IMED Corp. v. SystemsEng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992)). Additionally, "`[c]ourts must liberally construe the workers' compensation law "to effectuate its beneficent purposes," although such a construction must be one that the language of the statute "fairly and reasonably" supports.'" Ex parteWeaver, 871 So.2d 820, 824 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Ex parteBeaver Valley Corp., 871 So.2d 408, 411 (Ala. 1985)).

Section 25-5-11(a) provides that an employer has a right to "reimbursement" of compensation and benefits. As to medical benefits, however, the Code section states something different: "the employer shall be entitled tosubrogation for medical and vocational benefits." The use of two different terms — "reimbursement" and "subrogation" — is a distinction that we infer has meaning. The 1992 amendment specifically used the term "reimbursement" in reference to compensation and "subrogation" in reference to medical benefits. "[W]hen the legislature uses certain language in one part of the statute and different language in another, the court assumes different meanings were intended. . . . The use of different terms within related statutes generally implies that different meanings were intended." 2A Norman Singer, Sutherland on Statutes andStatutory Construction § 46:06, at 194 (6th ed. 2000) (footnotes omitted).² We presume that the use of two different words indicates that the legislature intended the two words be treated differently.

"Reimbursement" is a broad term implicating a simple repayment or indemnification. Black's Law Dictionary 1312 (8th ed. 2004). Prior decisions interpreting this term for purposes of § 25-5-11(a) have interpreted it to refer to the repayment of compensation from the proceeds of an action against a third party, whether a negligence action or a wrongful-death action. Thus, an employer who had paid workers' compensation benefits, including disability or death benefits, is entitled to be reimbursed for those payments, even from a punitive-damages award. See, e.g., Millers Mut. Ins. Ass'nv. Young, supra (an employer may be reimbursed from the punitive-damages award in a wrongful-death action filed by a deceased employee's estate for death benefits the employer has paid).

This Court, however, has equated the word "subrogation" in § 25-5-11(a) specifically *Page 86 with the equitable doctrine of subrogation. In Ex parteBEK Construction Co., 728 So.2d 621 (Ala. 1998), an employee who was injured on the job filed an action against his employer seeking workers' compensation benefits; the employee also filed an action against a third party based on the same incident. The employee settled the third-party action, and the employer sought to recoup from the settlement the disability benefits and medical expenses it had paid the employee, as well as to withhold future medical benefits that could be recouped from the settlement.

This Court, in holding that § 25-5-11(a) allowed an employer to withhold future medical benefits that it would be required to pay, held:

"A number of states have enacted statutes specifically providing the employer or its insurer subrogation as to the amounts it pays for the employee's future medical expenses. In situations, however, where state legislatures were not as precise in dealing with the issue of subrogation rights, courts have held that an insurer may withhold payment of future medical benefits until the recovery from a third-party tortfeasor is exhausted, at which time the insurer would resume payment. Further, Professor Larson, in his treatise on workers' compensation, reasons that `if the statute does not take pains to deal explicitly with the problem of future benefits, but merely credits the carrier for compensation paid . . . the correct holding is still that the excess of the third-party recovery over past compensation actually paid stands as a credit against future liability of the carrier.' A. Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 74-31(e), p. 14-471 (1989 Supp. 1990).

"We conclude that the Legislature . . . did not intend to limit subrogation to benefits that had been paid, but intended, as Professor Larson suggested, that the excess of the third-party recovery over the amount paid in past medical and vocational benefits should stand as a credit against future liability. Stated differently, we believe the Legislature intended that the law of subrogation apply. This Court has held:

"`The entire law of subrogation, conventional or legal, is based upon equitable principles. The equitable considerations that are the underpinnings of subrogation are (1) that the insured should not recover twice for a single injury, and (2) that the insurer should be reimbursed for payments it made that, in fairness, should be [made] by the wrongdoer.'

"Powell v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 581 So.2d 772, 774 (Ala. 1990) (citations omitted); quoted in American Economy Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 643 So.2d 1350, 1352 (Ala. 1994)."

The 1992 legislation amending 25-5-11(a) used this term instead of "reimbursement," which was retained in other portions of the Code section, and we believe that the legislature's use of two different words indicates a distinction between the terms. We thus hold that the term "subrogation" as used in §25-5-11(a) refers to the equitable doctrine of subrogation.BEK supra.³ *Page 87

Under the equitable doctrine of subrogation, "a subrogee steps into the shoes of its subrogor and that subrogee only gets those rights that its subrogor has. The subrogee can have no greater rights." Star Freight, Inc. v. Sheffield,587 So.2d 946, 958 n. 5 (Ala. 1991). Because Liberty Mutual would not be able to recover medical expenses from Indiana Mills and Manufacturing if it were to step into Trott's shoes in the wrongful-death action, we hold that the Liberty Mutual's right to subrogation under § 25-5-11(a) similarly would not allow the recovery of medical benefits from the proceeds of Trott's wrongful-death action.

This is in accord with the equitable principles stressed inBEK To deny "subrogation" in this instance would not cause Trott to "recover twice for a single injury" because medical expenses are not recoverable in a wrongful-death action. Because the wrongdoer cannot be required to pay damages for medical expenses, the employer cannot argue that it "should be reimbursed for payments it made that, in fairness, should be [made] by the wrong-doer." BEK, 728 So.2d at 624.

Liberty Mutual points out that the Court of Civil Appeals, in a factually similar case, held that an employer was entitled to recover medical benefits under § 25-5-11(a) in a wrongful-death action. See Municipal Workmen's Comp. Fund,Inc. v. Jolly, 709 So.2d 1230 (Ala.Civ.App. 1997). However, that decision does not analyze the distinction between the words "reimbursement" and "subrogation" in § 25-5-11(a) or explain how it reached its conclusion. Additionally, the court purported to rely on the authority of Millers Mut.Ins. Ass'n v. Young, supra, a case that involved the reimbursement of death benefits from a damages award in a wrongful-death action, not medical benefits. We therefore decline to follow the rationale of Jolly.

QUESTION ANSWERED.

COBB, C.J., and LYONS, WOODALL, and PARKER, JJ., concur.

SEE, STUART, BOLIN, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur specially.

I concur in the main opinion. I write specially to clarify my understanding of Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-11.

Under Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-11(a), if a third party is found liable for an injury to an employee, then "[t]o 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." "Compensation" is defined in § 25-5-1(1) as "[t]he money benefits to be paid on account of injury or death . . ."; however, expressly excluded from the definition of compensation are "medical and surgical treatment and attention, medicine, medical and surgical supplies, and crutches and apparatus furnished an employee on account of an injury." Thus, the statutory right of the employer to "reimbursement" does not include a right to reimbursement for medical expenses paid to, or on behalf *Page 88 of, the employee. Liberty Mutual paid for Ronald D. Trott's medical treatment, and because the payment was for medical treatment, Liberty Mutual is not entitled to "reimbursement" under § 25-5-11(a).

Section 25-5-11(a) does provide that "the employer shall be entitled to subrogation for medical and vocational benefits expended by the employer on behalf of the employee. . . ." Thus, under § 25-5-11(a), Liberty Mutual has a subrogation right. Under the circumstances of the case before us, however, this right is of no value to Liberty Mutual. "Under the general principles of subrogation[,] a subrogee steps into the shoes of its subrogor and that subrogee only gets those rights that its subrogor has. The subrogee can have no greater rights."Star Freight, Inc. v. Sheffield, 587 So.2d 946, 958 n. 5 (Ala. 1991). In this case, Ronald D. Trott, the employee, is deceased, and, therefore, has no right to the recovery of medical expenses under Alabama law. As the main opinion explains,

"[m]edical expenses, such as those Liberty Mutual seeks to recover here, are compensatory in nature and are not recoverable by a plaintiff in a wrongful-death action. . . .

". . . .

". . . Because Liberty Mutual would not be able to recover medical expenses from Indiana Mills and Manufacturing if it were to step into Trott's shoes in the wrongful-death action, we hold that Liberty Mutual's right to subrogation under §25-5-11(a) similarly would not allow the recovery of medical benefits from the proceeds of Trott's wrongful-death action."

972 So.2d at 84-S7. All such rights to recover medical benefits have been extinguished and replaced by the right to punitive damages measured only by the wrongfulness of the act that caused the death. See Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-410;Huckaby v. East Alabama Med. Ctr., 830 F.Supp. 1399,1403 (M.D.Ala. 1993) ("It is only where the plaintiff has filed a personal injury action before his death, and then dies, that both the wrongful death and personal injury claims may be maintained."); Airheart v. Green, 267 Ala. 689,692, 104 So.2d 687, 690 (1958) ("`[Wrongful-death] damages are entirely punitive, imposed for the preservation of human life. . . . The punishment by way of damages is intended not alone to punish the wrongdoer, but as a deterrent to others similarly minded.'" (quoting Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v.Weldon, 267 Ala. 171, 190, 100 So.2d 696, 713 (1957))). Thus, Liberty Mutual, as the subrogee of Trott's rights, has no claim for Trott's medical expenses.

Liberty Mutual argues that this Court should construe the term "subrogation" to mean "reimbursement," thereby allowing it to recover its medical expenses out of the judgment in the wrongful-death action; however, the legislature is presumed to know the difference between the terms "reimbursement" and "subrogation." Bean Dredging, L.L.C. v. Alabama Dep't ofRevenue, 855 So.2d 513, 517 (Ala. 2003) ("[This Court] will presume that the Legislature knew the meaning of the words it used when it enacted the statute."). I note that the legislature uses the terms "reimbursement" and "subrogation" in the same paragraph, indicating that, though well aware of the possibility that it could again use the term "reimbursement," it chose instead to use term "subrogation" when it defined the employer's claim to medical expenses. We presume that when the legislature uses two different terms, it means two different things.⁴ *Page 89

Because Alabama's wrongful-death statute permits recovery of only punitive damages, it may be that just as death benefits are reimbursable from a punitive-damages award in a wrongful-death action, other funds paid to or on behalf of the insured also should be reimbursable from the award, or it may be that the right to recover for medical expenses should survive the death of the insured; however, "the legislature, and not this Court, has the exclusive domain to formulate public policy in Alabama." Boles v. Parris,952 So.2d 364, 367 (Ala. 2006). "Matters of policy are for the Legislature and, whether wise or unwise, legislative policies are no concern to the courts." Marsh v. Green, 782 So.2d 223,231 (Ala. 2000).

I, therefore, concur in the main opinion.

STUART and BOLIN, JJ., concur.

I concur in the main opinion. I write separately to add that the holding in this case is in accord with a certain portion of this Court's holding in Ex parte BEKConstruction Co., 728 So.2d 621 (Ala. 1998), and the holdings of this Court in two other cases. Specifically, this Court explained in BEK that "in situations where the injured employee recovers from a third-party tortfeasor,the amount of that recovery attributable to the employee'smedical or vocational expenses" is to be applied against the worker's compensation insurer's obligation for those expenses and that the trial court must "determine, usingequitable principles applicable to subrogation rights, which part of [the employee's] settlement is attributableto his medical expenses." 728 So.2d at 624 (emphasis