Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases
Personal Injury
Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
Workers' Compensation
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
Attorney
Staff
Blog Category:

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

    7/16/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    Insured Not Allowed UM/UIM Benefits for Accidents Caused By Co-employee

    On July 15, 2008 the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Lancaster, J.) held in Shaw v. State Farm Insurance Company that an insured is not allowed to recover UM/UIM benefits under his insurance policy with State Farm for injuries sustained during the course and scope of his employment due to the negligence of a co-worker.  Shaw was injured in a work related accident when the garbage truck he was riding in was negligently driven by a co-worker.  He sought and received workers compensation benefits and did not sue his employer or co-worker due to immunity under the Workers Compensation Act.  He then sought UM/UIM benefits from State Farm which denied the claim by arguing that the benefits were not "legally entitled" and thus Shaw could not recover. 
    The Court relies mainly upon a not precedential Third Circuit case in Nationwide Mut Ins Co v. Chiao, 186 Fed.Appx. 181 (3d Cir. 2006) and grants State Farm's Motion for Summary Judgment.  However, there is no mention or reference to the state trial court decision from Adams County in Brumbaugh v. Erie Insurance Exchange in 2006 where Judge Walker in Franklin County held that an insured was entitled to UM/UIM coverage in the same factual situation.

    Labels: automobile accident, case law, federal court, Underinsurance, work injury


There are no comments.

Post a comment

Post a Comment to "Insured Not Allowed UM/UIM Benefits for Accidents Caused By Co-employee"

To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."

Username:*

Password:*

Register for an account

Message:

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

For security purposes, please enter the text in the graphic below: [hit F5 if you can not read the text]

Quick Contact

Name:

Phone:

Email:

(We do not share or sell your email)

Tell us more:


Carroll & Carroll, P.C.
100 Center Street
Athens, PA 18810
Phone: (570) 882-8683


Get Directions

Map / Directions


©2009 Carroll & Carroll, P.C., All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission
The Best in Website Design for Attorneys, Attorney Web Blogs That Work, Attorney Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services for Lawyers and Update Your Website Yourself
by Foster Web Marketing - The Best Attorney Website Design & Hosting Firm
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog