Baker v. St. Paul Travelers, et al

Filing 920100217

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Safety Source Northeast is a Massachusetts corporation with\
its principal place of business in Massachusetts. According to\
Baker, Safety is licensed to do business in Rhode Island and Baker\
was hired by Safety in Rhode Island and exclusively worked out of\
Safety\'s Rhode Island office, in Warwick, Rhode Island. \
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'The insurance policy was executed and delivered in\
Massachusetts.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'Baker also brought suit in state court against her employer,\
Safety. After removal by Safety to federal court, Baker\
voluntarily dismissed her claim against Safety. \
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'Baker argues that Rhode Island law should apply under the\
interest-weighing approach adopted in Woodward v. Stewart, 243 A.2d\
917, 923 (R.I. 1968). Such a conclusion would clearly advantage\
Baker because Rhode Island law seems to permit an injured employee\
to recover under both workers\' compensation and her employer\'s UIM\
coverage, provided the WC payment is reduced by the amount of the\
UIM recovery (an "offset"). Though the parties cite to no\
definitive Rhode Island case so holding, there are numerous cases\
that suggest this result. See, e.g., Poulos v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.\
Co., 379 A.2d 362, 365 (R.I. 1977) (where an injured employee\'s\
personal UIM coverage includes an offset provision regarding\
workers\' compensation, such clause is enforceable only to the\
extent that it prevents a double recovery by the injured employee);\
Cruz v. Wausau Ins., 866 A.2d 1238, 1239-40 (R.I. 2005) (court only\
decided a procedural matter and raised no objection to injured\
employee\'s recovery from both WC and his employer\'s UIM coverage);\
Charest v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co., 1996 WL 936921 (R.I. Super.\
April 23, 1996) (an injured employee who recovered on his\
employer\'s UIM coverage and received WC payments was required to\
offset those two amounts when he sought coverage from a third\
source, his personal UIM coverage). \
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'It is also worth noting that the SJC acknowledged in Berger\
that state courts have reached a variety of conclusions on this\
question depending on how they have interpreted the exclusivity\
provisions of their own workers\' compensation statutes. See\
Berger, 416 Mass. at 655 and n.8.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'In Berger the court noted that the Massachusetts uninsured\
motorist provision was intended to "minimize the possibility of .\
. . catastrophic financial loss [to] the victims of an automobile\
accident," while in the case of a workplace injury, "the employee\
is protected from the risk of catastrophic financial loss through\
workers\' compensation." 416 Mass. at 656 (internal citations and\
quotations omitted). In National Union, the court expanded on this\
policy concern:\
\
              As a matter of fair and equal treatment, a person injured\
in the course of employment while in a motor vehicle of\
the employer need not obtain any greater insurance\
benefits than another person sustaining a similar injury\
in the course of employment but not in a motor vehicle of\
the employer. The cost of UM coverage for employers\
would be substantially higher than otherwise if that\
coverage in a standard policy applied to employees\'\
on-the-job motor vehicle injuries. That increase would\
not be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the\
cost of workers\' compensation coverage. \
\
423 Mass. at 349-50.\
'

var WPFootnote7 = 'St. Paul argues that the National Union carve-out only\
applies to "non-standard" policies, which St. Paul appears to\
define as policies that do not use the standard forms issued by the\
Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner. The plain language of the\
National Union carve-out, however, suggests a broader exclusion of\
any coverage explicitly purchased in order to provide additional\
protection to the employer\'s workers. This exception requires a\
factual determination as to whether the UIM coverage was elected\
and paid for by the employer in order to protect his employees from\
the harm of underinsured motorists. \
'

var WPFootnote8 = 'The manual is available in PDF form on the public website of\
the Automobile Insurers Bureau of Massachusetts (AIB). See\
http://www.aib.org/ContentPages/DocumentView.aspx?DocId=559. The\
AIB is a non-profit association of Massachusetts insurers that is\
subject to the "visitation, supervision and examination" of the\
Massachusetts Commissioner of Insurance. See Constitution of\
Automobile Insurers Bureau of Massachusetts, at\
http://www.aib.org/ContentPages/DocumentView.aspx?DocId=447. \
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "