Uninsured motorists (UM) coverage provides insurance benefits where the injuries sustained as the result of negligence related to operation of a motor vehicle exceed the injured party's ability to recover compensation for those damages from other sources. The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently ruled in State Farm v. Slusher, No. 2008-CA-000169 (February 27, 2009), that the Estate of a State Farm insured, who was killed during the course of his employment, could recover the UM benefits for which he had purchased coverage on his own vehicle. This is a decision recognizing the basic principle of law that insurance coverage paid for should be received.
David Slusher was a coal truck operator for Bell County Coal Corporation. As a result of a co-worker’s negligent failure to properly secure the parking brake on a coal truck, he was killed. His Estate was able to collect workers’ compensation death benefits, which were insufficient to cover the damages and losses sustained by reason of his death. Therefore, the estate claimed UM benefits under Slusher's own policy on his own vehicle with State Farm. State Farm refused to pay and argued that collection of the UM benefits was barred, because workers’ compensation death benefits had been paid.
Slusher’s UM benefits became applicable because the losses caused by his death exceeded those which he otherwise was “legally entitled to recover.” State Farm argued that since workers’ compensation benefits was the sole and exclusive remedy as against Slusher’s employer and as against the co-worker whose negligence caused his death, he was not “legally entitled to recover” any damages from either. Therefore, the insurance company claimed that it was not obligated to pay.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals rejected this argument. First, the Court applied the “essential facts” doctrine and concluded that benefits should be paid because (a) negligence regarding operation of motor vehicle had caused Slusher's death; and (b) the damages exceeded by more than $50,000, which was the policy limits of the UM coverage, the workers compensation death benefits that had been paid. Secondly, the Court ruled that Slusher entertained “a reasonable expectation” to collect the benefits for which he had paid premiums. Finally, the Court noted that Kentucky law includes a “expansive view” regarding UM and UIM (underinsured motorist) insurance coverage toward assuring that injured parties are made whole.
The Kentucky Consumer Guide To Buying Car Insurance can tell you more about the importance of UM and UIM coverages.
Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com
