 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
PETERSON v. UTAH FARM BUREAU INS. CO.10/31/1996
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Clyde, 920 P.2d 1183, 1185 (Utah 1996). "As entitlement to summary judgment is a question of law, we need give no deference to the trial court's determination of the issues." Geary, 869 P.2d at 954.
ANALYSIS
Initially, we address Peterson's assertion that the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act does not preclude Farm Bureau's payment of UIM benefits. The Workers' Compensation Act provides, in pertinent part:
The right to recover compensation pursuant to the provisions of this title for injuries sustained by an employee, whether resulting in death or not, shall be the exclusive remedy against the employer and shall be the exclusive remedy against any . . . employee of the employer and the liabilities of the employer imposed by this act shall be in place of any and all other civil liability whatsoever, at common law or otherwise . . . and no action at law may be maintained against an employer or against any . . . employee of the employer based upon any accident, injury , or death of an employee.
Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-60 (Supp. 1994) (emphasis added). The Utah Supreme Court has definitively concluded:
he Act is the exclusive vehicle for recovery of compensation for injury or death, against the employer and other employees to the exclusion of "any and all other civil liability whatsoever, at common law or otherwise," and . . . it bars all next of kin or dependents, or anyone else, from using any other means of recovery against employers and others named in and covered by the Act, than the Act itself.
Morrill v. J & M Constr. Co., 635 P.2d 88, 89 (Utah 1981) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-60). Hence, by this section's plain language, an employee's right to recover against an employer or fellow employee, pursuant to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, is limited to the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. See Utah Code Ann. § 35-1-60.
In granting Farm Bureau's summary judgment motion, the trial court concluded, as a matter of law, that the exclusive remedy provision of section 35-1-60 limits Peterson's recovery against Clifford, a coemployee, to the benefits paid him under the Workers' Compensation Act.
In challenging the trial court's legal determination, Peterson asserts that the specific facts of this case present an issue of first impression in Utah, and cites an Oklahoma decision supporting his claim. In Torres v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 849 P.2d 407 (Okla. 1993), the Oklahoma Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in Barfield v. Barfield, 742 P.2d 1107 (Okla. 1987), that the phrase "legally entitled to recover" found in Oklahoma's insurance code, see 36 Okla.Stat. § 3636(B) (1981), as well as in both the Torres and Barfield insurance policies, meant that "the insured must be able to establish fault on the part of the uninsured motorist which gives rise to damages and prove the extent of those damages." Torres, 849 P.2d at 410. Accordingly, the Torres court permitted recovery under the subject policy in spite of the Oklahoma Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision, 85 Okla.Stat. § 12 (1991), concluding that " o allow recovery in such a situation is merely giving effect to the intention of the parties who contemplated a situation where an insured would not be able to recover for his injuries from the tortfeasor." Torres, 849 P.2d at 412; see also Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pettie, 54 Ark. App. 79, 924 S.W.2d 828, 832 (1996) (declaring, "we do not believe that the exclusive remedy provisions of the workers' compensation law bars the appellee from being 'legally entitled to recover' against the owner .
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|