Continental Insurance v. Fahey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that under Section 52-5-17, prior to 1990, injured worker was required to reimburse employer or workers’ compensation carrier for duplicative compensation received from third-party tortfeasor but not from discrete and independent insurance coverage
• reducing UM recovery by amount injured party receives in workers’ compensation contravenes legislative intent of UM statute and is therefore unenforceable
• reducing UM recovery by amount injured party receives in workers' compensation contravenes legislative intent of UM statute and is therefore unenforceable
• uninsured motorist insurer was not entitled to offset for workers’ compensation benefits paid to employee
• “We emphasize that we have never declared a worker’s compensation judgment to be the full and actual value of the worker’s damages.”
• insurance company was not entitled to offset amount of the workers’ compensation it paid to the worker/insured against the amount it would have paid under its uninsured motorist policy because to do so would have reduced the insurer’s liability below the statutory minimum

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).