 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lieber v. ITT Hartford Insurance Center8/29/2000
As amended November 17, 2000
Second District, Davis County The Honorable Michael G. Allphin
Plaintiff Randy Lieber appeals from a decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of ITT Hartford Insurance Center, Inc., and denying Lieber's cross-motion for summary judgment and his request for attorney fees. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
This is a personal injury action brought by Lieber against several defendants for damages he sustained in a multi-vehicle accident while traveling on Interstate 15 on November 23, 1993. At the time of the accident, Lieber was employed by Kraft Food Service, was driving a vehicle owned by Kraft, and was acting within the scope of his employment. Lieber filed for and received workers' compensation benefits through Kraft's compensation insurer, Hartford. The Kraft vehicle that Lieber was driving at the time of the accident was insured through a separate business automobile policy issued by Hartford. This policy contained the following exclusionary language:
B. EXCLUSIONS
This insurance does not apply to any of the following:
3. WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Any obligation for which the "insured" or the "insured's" insurer may be held liable under any workers' compensation . . . law or similar law.
Endorsement No. 110 of Hartford's auto policy, entitled "Utah Uninsured Motorist Coverage," provided in part:
A. COVERAGE
1. We will pay all sums the "insured" is legally entitled to recover as compensatory damages from the owner or driver of an "uninsured motor vehicle." .
C. EXCLUSIONS
This insurance does not apply to any of the following:
2. The direct or indirect benefit of any insurer or self-insurer under any workers' compensation, disability benefits or similar law.
Endorsement No. 26 of the policy, entitled "Auto Medical Payments Coverage," provided in part:
C. EXCLUSIONS
This insurance does not apply to any of the following:
4. "Bodily injury" to your employee arising out of and in the course of employment by you. However, we will cover "bodily injury" to your domestic employees if not entitled to workers compensation benefits.
As part of his personal injury action, Lieber brought third-party claims against two "ghost" defendants, who allegedly partially caused the accident, but who fled the scene and whose identities are unknown. Lieber named Hartford as a defendant in a representative capacity for the two unknown drivers and any underinsured drivers involved in the accident. On October 28, 1997, Hartford moved for summary judgment based on the exclusive remedy provision of the Utah Workers' Compensation Act, Utah Code Ann. § 34A-2-105(1) (Supp. 1999), and the exclusionary language in its policy. In response, Lieber filed a motion for partial summary judgment and for attorney fees. Following oral argument, the trial court granted Hartford's motion and denied Lieber's motions. In its final order, filed on November 23, 1998, the trial court concluded that "Utah Code Ann. § 31A-22-305(4)(b)(ii) bars an employee from collecting from his employer both worker's compensation benefits and uninsured motorist coverage" and that "Hartford's policy also explicitly states in several places that no insurance is provided to employees who received benefits under the worker's compensation act." This order was certified as a final order pursuant to rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Lieber argues that the trial court erred in holding that: (1) se
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Utah Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|