Summary
The Delaware Supreme Court held that a workers’ compensation insurer could not assert a lien against underinsured motorist benefits paid under an employer-purchased UIM policy. Interpreting 19 Del. C. § 2363(e), the court concluded that the 1993 statutory amendments eliminated the insurer’s ability to obtain reimbursement from the UIM payments and reversed the Superior Court’s judgment.
Holdings
- Under the post-1993 version of 19 Del. C. § 2363(e), a workers' compensation insurer may not assert a priority lien against UIM payments made pursuant to an employer's UIM policy.
- The UIM policy exclusion is enforceable, and the Superior Court erred as a matter of law by holding it unenforceable and enforcing the workers' compensation lien.
Questions Presented
- Whether 19 Del. C. § 2363(e) permits a workers' compensation insurer to assert a lien against UIM benefits paid under an employer's UIM policy.
- Whether the UIM policy exclusion barring the direct or indirect benefit of a workers' compensation insurer is unenforceable because it conflicts with 19 Del. C. § 2363(e).
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (8)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Patterson, 7 A.3d 454, 456 (Del. 2010)(followed)
- Brown v. United Water Delaware, Inc., 3 A.3d 272, 275 (Del. 2010)(followed)
- Adams v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 575 A.2d 1103, 1106-07 (Del. 1990)(followed in part)
- Hurst v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 652 A.2d 10 (Del. 1995)(adopted)
- Harris v. New Castle County, 513 A.2d 1307, 1308-09 (Del. 1986)(distinguished)
- Guy J. Johnson Transportation Co. v. Dunkle, 541 A.2d 551, 552 (Del. 1988)(distinguished)
- Travelers v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 9 A.2d 88, 90-91 (Del. 1939)(distinguished)
- State v. Donahue, 472 A.2d 824, 827-28 (Del. Super. Ct. 1983)(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…