 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Henry6/24/2005
ouble recovery." According to Travelers, "double recovery" must be construed to mean a recovery from both the insurer and a third party for the same injury. See Surdam, 156 Vt. at 590, 595 A.2d at 266 ("When a third party is found responsible in a personal injury action for damages suffered by the worker, the worker is not permitted double recovery from both the insurer and third party for the same injury."). In other words, Travelers reiterates its assertion that it is entitled to a "first dollar" reimbursement right from Henry's UIM recovery under his employer-purchased policy. Travelers argues that this is the only interpretation that will implement the policy underlying the reimbursement statute, i.e., the prevention of a double recovery.
21. We reject Travelers' interpretation because it would render the 1999 amendment a nullity. Under Travelers' proposed interpretation, the result would be the same under both the pre-amendment and post-amendment versions of the statute-Travelers would be entitled to first-dollar reimbursement from an employee's UIM recovery. We must presume that, by amending the statute, the Legislature intended to change the law. State v. Yorkey, 163 Vt. 355, 358, 657 A.2d 1079, 1080 (1995) (" here is a presumption that the Legislature does not intend to enact meaningless legislation."). Thus, we must construe 21 V.S.A. § 624(e) in a way that will not render the amendment "ineffective or meaningless." Id.
22. We conclude that by amending the statute, the Legislature intended to change the result reached in Travelers Cos. and Brunet, and protect an employee's UIM recovery from a workers' compensation carrier's right to "first dollar" reimbursement. The Legislature remained mindful of the need to prevent a double recovery, however, and this makes salient an inquiry into the nature of the damages recovered under first-party insurance policies. On this point, we find our reasoning in Surdam, 156 Vt. at 590, 595 A.2d at 266, instructive. In Surdam, we drew a distinction between economic and non-economic damages in considering an injured employee's obligation to reimburse a workers' compensation carrier under § 624(e). See id. at 590-91, 595 A.2d at 266-67. We concluded that a workers' compensation carrier was not entitled to reimbursement from an employee's third-party recovery, where the recovery, under New York law, represented solely non-economic damages. Id. We stated that allowing the insurance carrier to be reimbursed out of such damages would saddle the injured employee with a "double debit," as opposed to a "double recovery." Id. at 589, 595 A.2d at 266 (quotations omitted). As we explained, " he Vermont Legislature could not have intended that an injured employee must lose a non-economic recovery to pay back economic damages received from a workers' compensation carrier." Id. at 590, 595 A.2d at 266.
23. We rejected this approach in 1996 in Brunet, 165 Vt. at 317, 682 A.2d at 488, concluding that under the plain language of § 624(e), a workers' compensation carrier was entitled to first-dollar reimbursement from "any recovery" in a third-party suit. "Double recovery," however, is distinct from "any recovery." In light of the Legislature's amendment to § 624(e), in which this language is used, we find the approach used in Surdam, distinguishing between economic and non-economic damages, persuasive in the context of an employee's recovery of UIM benefits. The plain meaning of the amended statute indicates the Legislature's intent to protect an employee's UIM benefits to the extent that it does not represent a double recovery. Drawing a distinction between economic and non-economic damages pays heed to the unique character of UIM benefits while remaining c
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.
|
|