 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Henry6/24/2005
5, 317, 682 A.2d 487, 488 (1996). Our conclusion rested on the plain language of § 624(e), which allowed an insurer to be reimbursed out of "any recovery" that an employee received from a third party. Id. This rationale implicitly extended to an employee's recovery of UM/UIM benefits under a privately purchased insurance policy under our holding in Travelers Cos., 164 Vt. at 373, 670 A.2d at 829-30.
9. Effective July 1, 1999, the Legislature amended 21 V.S.A. § 624(e) to include the following sentence:
Reimbursement required under this subsection, except to prevent double recovery, shall not reduce the employee's recovery of any benefit or payment provided by a plan or policy that was privately purchased by the injured employee, including uninsured-under insured motorist coverage, or any other first party insurance payments or benefits.
10. We are now asked to interpret the terms of the amended statute. Travelers argues that under § 624(e), as amended, it is still entitled to "first dollar" reimbursement from Henry's recovery of UIM benefits under his employer-purchased policy. According to Travelers, the 1999 amendment was enacted to protect an employee's recovery of UIM benefits under a privately-purchased policy, and it argues that there is no suggestion in either the plain language of the statute or its legislative history that the Legislature intended to protect UIM benefits recovered under an employer-purchased policy.
11. We disagree. In interpreting 21 V.S.A. § 624(e), our goal is "to discern and implement the intent of the Legislature." Merkel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 166 Vt. 311, 314, 693 A.2d 706, 707 (1997). If the Legislature's intent is clear from the plain meaning of the words used, we must enforce the statute according to its terms. Tarrant v. Dep't of Taxes, 169 Vt. 189, 197, 733 A.2d 733, 739 (1999). In this case, the Legislature's intent is clear from the plain language of the statute-an employee's recovery of UIM proceeds under an automobile liability policy purchased by his employer is a "first party insurance payment or benefit" that is not subject to the workers' compensation carrier's right to reimbursement except to prevent a double recovery.
12. The text of the statute is unambiguous-the phrase "privately purchased by the injured employee" does not modify the phrase "or any other first party insurance payments or benefits." The latter phrase is set off by a comma, and it stands independently of the "privately purchased" requirement. While Travelers asserts that this interpretation renders the "privately purchased" requirement meaningless, Travelers' proposed construction would disregard the latter portion of the statute. From the statute, as written, it is apparent that the Legislature sought to protect two types of payments-those made under privately-purchased plans (including UIM coverage) and those payments made to the employee under "any other first party" plan. Because the language of the statute is clear, we need not discuss Travelers' assertion that testimony received at a legislative hearing on the amendment supports a contrary construction. See Cavanaugh v. Abbott Labs., 145 Vt. 516, 530, 496 A.2d 154, 162-63 (1985) (explaining that where statutory language is unambiguous, there is no need to review legislative history). We note that this testimony would be of little weight in any event. See State v. Madison, 163 Vt. 360, 373, 658 A.2d 536, 545 (1995) (" he remarks of a witness at a committee hearing are accorded little weight in determining the intent of the legislature in enacting a statute.").
13. Travelers maintains that, even accepting this interpretation of the statute, the UIM proceeds at iss
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Vermont Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|