 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
RELIANCE INSURANCE CO. v. AMERICAN CASUALTY CO.6/6/1996
In accordance with Practice Book §§ 4147 and 4148, the trial court granted the parties' joint interlocutory motion for reservation of a question of law to the Appellate Court. We subsequently transferred the reservation to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). The issue agreed upon by the parties and reserved by the trial court for advice is as follows: "In light of the provisions of Public Act No. 93-297, §§ 1 and , is an employee barred from recovering uninsured motorist coverage benefits against his employer's insurer in regard to a motor vehicle accident that occurred prior to the effective date of the [Public] Act?" We conclude that an employee is not so barred and answer "no" to the reserved question.
The following facts are not disputed. On January 13, 1989, Beverly Martin was involved in a two car accident with an uninsured vehicle in Danbury during the course of her employment as a driver for Jace Transportation (Jace). Martin suffered injuries in the accident, which was caused by the tortious conduct of the driver of the uninsured vehicle. As a result of her injuries, Martin applied for, and received, workers'
compensation benefits from Jace's workers' compensation carrier.
At the time of Martin's accident, Jace was covered by an insurance policy issued by the defendant, American Casualty Insurance Company of Reading, Pennsylvania, that included uninsured motorist coverage. At the same time, Martin also had a personal automobile insurance policy with the plaintiff, Reliance Insurance Company, that included uninsured motorist coverage. Martin sought and received compensation for her injuries pursuant to the uninsured motorist coverage provided by her personal insurance policy issued by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff subsequently brought this suit against the defendant seeking to recover the sum that the plaintiff had paid to Martin. At this early stage in the proceedings, the trial court has deemed the resolution of the reserved question sufficiently important to invoke the procedural mechanism of Practice Book § 4147, which allows this court or the Appellate Court to answer specific reserved questions if that answer is "reasonably certain to enter into the decision of the case" and if it appears that answering the question "would be in the interest of simplicity, directness and economy of judicial action."
In CNA Ins. Co. v. Colman, 222 Conn. 769, 610 A.2d 1257 (1992), we concluded that an employee injured in an automobile accident during the course of his or her employment who had received workers' compensation benefits was barred by General Statutes § 31-284 (a)
from recovering "against a commercial insurance provider on an uninsured motorist insurance policy procured by [his or her] employer." Id., 772. We reasoned that " ecause of the central role that the exclusive remedy provision [of § 31-284 (a)] plays in our workers' compensation law, an employee who can
receive workers' compensation benefits is . . . barred from collecting under his employer's uninsured motorist coverage, whether that coverage is provided through self-insurance or through a commercial insurance policy." Id., 774.
In 1993, in response to our decision in Colman, the legislature enacted No. 93-297 of the 1993 Public Acts (P.A. 93-297), § (1) (f) of which provides that " otwithstanding subsection (a) of section 31-284, an employee of a named insured injured while occupying a covered motor vehicle in the course of employment shall be covered by such insured's otherwise applicable uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage." The effective date of this provision was January 1, 1994, several years
Page 1 2 3 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|