I am at first surprised that the WC policy did not cover the entirety of the loss but where other coverage exists, the worker’s comp insurer should have been reimbursed by the UIM carrier proportionally for the actual loss incurred by the injured worker.
There are quite a few things wrong in this article. If the first 4 paragraphs are to be believed Mr Heller was reimbursed for two thirds of his salary by WC and then the town paid the other third so there was no monetary loss. Workers Comp paid for all the medical so there was no out of pocket expenses. Then he gets a bonus $25,000 from the auto insurer.
“Frustrating the right of subrogation” is bogus because the premium for the UIM and WC were paid for by the same policyholder, the borough. There is no benefit from subrogation in this case.
As for illusory coverage, that argument holds no water. Had Mr Heller not been on the job and did not have all expenses and salary already reimbursed, he would have had a valid claim and would be entitled to a recovery.
Finally, “windfall by charging a premium for the coverage” I would wager that the premium for the $100,000 UM UIM limit was less than five dollars.
This judge should be investigated, or at least educated.
Gosh, I thought public policy is found in legislation not created through judicial fiat.
I am at first surprised that the WC policy did not cover the entirety of the loss but where other coverage exists, the worker’s comp insurer should have been reimbursed by the UIM carrier proportionally for the actual loss incurred by the injured worker.
There are quite a few things wrong in this article. If the first 4 paragraphs are to be believed Mr Heller was reimbursed for two thirds of his salary by WC and then the town paid the other third so there was no monetary loss. Workers Comp paid for all the medical so there was no out of pocket expenses. Then he gets a bonus $25,000 from the auto insurer.
“Frustrating the right of subrogation” is bogus because the premium for the UIM and WC were paid for by the same policyholder, the borough. There is no benefit from subrogation in this case.
As for illusory coverage, that argument holds no water. Had Mr Heller not been on the job and did not have all expenses and salary already reimbursed, he would have had a valid claim and would be entitled to a recovery.
Finally, “windfall by charging a premium for the coverage” I would wager that the premium for the $100,000 UM UIM limit was less than five dollars.
This judge should be investigated, or at least educated.