 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Royston8/23/1991
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure, certified the following question to this court:
Whether Haw. Rev. Stat. [(HRS)] § 431-448(a) (1985) [Hawaii's uninsured motorist statute] permits a government employee to recover uninsured motorist benefits for work related injuries, where that employee is statutorily barred by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. , from prosecuting a tort action against the uninsured tortfeasor?
As a condition precedent to recovery of uninsured motorist benefits under HRS § 431-448(a), a person must show that he or she is "legally entitled to recover damages" from the uninsured tortfeasor. However, when the uninsured tortfeasor is the employer of such person, the requirement of HRS § 431-448(a) cannot be met since the "exclusive remedy" provision of the workers' compensation statute would preclude a tort claim against the employer. We therefore answer the certified question in the negative.
I.
On May 12, 1988, William G. Royston (Royston) was employed as a federal police officer for the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. While seated in his assigned patrol vehicle, which was owned by the United States government, Royston sustained personal injuries when the driver's seat he was adjusting collapsed backwards unexpectedly. As a result of the accident, Royston sought and received workers' compensation benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. § 8101, et seq.
Royston made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under his own automobile liability insurance coverage with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) based on his contention that the patrol vehicle assigned to him was "uninsured" because it was not covered under any automobile liability policy on the date of the accident. Royston argues that under FECA he will not recover all the damages that he could otherwise recover from an individual tortfeasor in a personal injury action, and therefore seeks uninsured motorist benefits with respect to such uncompensated elements of damages. Royston further argues that since the policy itself contemplates payment of uninsured motorist benefits in conjunction with the insured's receipt of workers' compensation benefits, he is entitled to such benefits.
Hawaii's uninsured motorist statute, HRS § 431-448(a), provides in pertinent part (emphasis added):
No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss resulting from bodily injury or death suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered . . . with respect to any motor vehicle . . . unless coverage is provided . . . for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom. . . .
State Farm's uninsured motorist provision, which is consistent with HRS § 431-448(a), provides as follows (emphasis added):
We will pay damages for bodily injury an insured is legally entitled to collect from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle . The bodily injury must be caused by an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle.
In response to Royston's claim, State Farm filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that uninsured motorist coverage is not applicable to Royston's accident because its uninsured motorist provision and Hawaii's uninsured motorist s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|