Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Injured worker cannot collect from co-worker’s auto insurance

Reprints
Colorado Supreme Court

A worker cannot recover benefits from his co-worker’s auto insurance because his claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Colorado Workers Compensation Act, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In Ryser v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., the state’s high court unanimously held in an en banc hearing that the Walmart Inc. employee, who was injured while riding in his co-worker’s car in the course and scope of his employment, cannot recover uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits from his co-worker’s policy despite the negligent driving of his fellow employee.

Kent Ryser and two of his co-workers, Linda Forster and Sherri Babion, all worked for Walmart when they were returning from a work trip in a car owned by Ms. Babion but driven at the time of the incident by Ms. Forster, who fell asleep at the wheel, resulting in the car striking an embankment, according to court documents.

Mr. Ryser suffered significant injuries in the accident and received workers compensation benefits. He also sought benefits from his own auto insurance policy and Ms. Babion’s auto insurer, Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., for uninsured motorist benefits. Shelter denied the claim.

Mr. Ryser then filed suit against Shelter, arguing that because Ms. Forster was immune from liability under the workers compensation act and was an “effectively uninsured” driver of Ms. Babion’s car, he was entitled to seek benefits due to her actions under Ms. Babion’s policy.

A district court dismissed his claim and an appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that Ms. Forster’s immunity precluded Mr. Ryser from recovering damages.

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court decision, noting that the “expansive wording” of the Colorado Workers Compensation Act barred Mr. Ryser’s claim against his co-worker’s insurance carrier.