 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County Workers Compensation Pool v. Folk9/8/1994
In this subrogation action to recoup workers' compensation benefits paid to its claimant in connection with an automobile accident, plaintiff, the County Workers Compensation Pool, appeals from the summary judgment dismissing the negligence action against defendants, Deah N. Folk and Cyndee M. Sanchez. At issue is whether claimant was entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under his own insurance policy. Because we hold the definition of a "motor vehicle" in claimant's insurance policy covered the county-owned sheriff's patrol car claimant was driving at the time of the accident, we conclude that claimant was eligible for PIP benefits. Therefore, we affirm.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. While driving a sheriff's patrol car in the course of his employment, claimant, Frank Adams, a sheriff's deputy for La Plata County, was injured as a result of the alleged negligence of defendants. The car being driven by Adams at the time of the accident was owned by the La Plata County Sheriff's Department. However, as permitted by the then applicable registration requirements, the vehicle was neither registered nor licensed in Colorado.
Adams filed a personal injury action against defendants. Asserting that plaintiff had a statutory right of subrogation as Adams' workers' compensation carrier because it had provided workers' compensation benefits to Adams as a result of the accident, plaintiff moved to intervene. That motion was granted.
In response to subsequent cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's complaint in intervention. The court ruled that Adams was eligible for PIP benefits under his personal insurance policy. Thus, it concluded that, under Tate v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 815 P.2d 15 (Colo. 1991), plaintiff had no subrogation right of action against defendants.
A.
The parties do not dispute, and we agree, that, if Adams was eligible for PIP benefits, then Tate v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, supra, bars his workers' compensation carrier from asserting a subrogation claim against the alleged tortfeasors.
In Tate, the court held that when PIP benefits would be payable by an injured party's no-fault insurance carrier but for the work-related nature of the accident, the PIP benefits exclusion in Colorado's No-Fault Act prohibits the workers' compensation carrier from pursuing a claim in subrogation against the tortfeasor.
When an individual is injured in an automobile accident during the course and scope of his employment, both the Workers' Compensation Act, § 8-40-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1993 Cum. Supp.), and the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act, § 10-4-701, et seq., C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A) (the No-Fault Act) apply. Under the primacy rule set forth in the No-Fault Act, an injured employee must pursue and exhaust a right to workers' compensation benefits before the employee can collect PIP benefits. Comiskey v. Valley Forge Insurance Co., 781 P.2d 188 (Colo. App. 1989); § 10-4-707(5), C.R.S. (1993 Cum. Supp.). The amount of PIP benefits is reduced by the amount of workers' compensation benefits received; the workers' compensation benefits take the place of PIP benefits.
The PIP benefits exclusion, § 10-4-713(1), C.R.S. (1993 Cum. Supp.), abrogates the workers' compensation insurer's subrogation rights under § 8-41-203(1), C.R.S. (1993 Cum. Supp.) to recover directly from a tortfeasor, to the extent that the workers' compensation benefits replac
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|