Case Title: Truck Ins. Exchange v. STATE INDUS. INS.

Citation: 823 P.2d 279

Docket Number: 

State: nevada

Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Date: 1991-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
823 P.2d 279 (1991) TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Appellant, v. STATE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM, a Public Agency of the State of Nevada, Respondent. No. 21840. Supreme Court of Nevada. December 30, 1991. *280 Beckley, Singleton, DeLanoy, Jemison & List, and Daniel F. Polsenberg, Las Vegas, for appellant. Riley M. Beckett and Laurie A. Yott, Carson City, for respondent. PER CURIAM: On November 4, 1986, Jericho DeGrave (DeGrave), an employee of Hanna-Epphrecht Nissan, was injured while driving his employer's vehicle within the scope of his employment. He received $7,105.26 from the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) in compensation for his injuries. SIIS brought suit against Truck Insurance Exchange (TIE) for subrogation against the uninsured/under-insured motorist (UM) proceeds available to DeGrave under his employer's insurance policy. The district court granted judgment in favor of SIIS. TIE argues on appeal that SIIS is not entitled to subrogation against an employer's UM policy. We agree. NRS 616.560 grants subrogation rights to worker's compensation insurers. NRS 616.560 provides in relevant part: (Emphasis added.) This court has considered whether subrogation is allowed against a UM policy in Continental Casualty v. Riveras, 107 Nev. 530, 814 P.2d 1015 (1991). There, this court "questioned" SIIS' authority to assert a lien against a UM insurance carrier. Id. at 532 n. 2, 814 P.2d at 1017 n. 2. We stated that NRS 616.560 subsection (1) Id. Riveras is the controlling authority for the case before us. A UM carrier is not a third-party tortfeasor which owes a duty to SIIS. Here, Hanna-Epphrecht Nissan sought to protect its employees by purchasing UM coverage. TIE, as the UM carrier, is not a third-party tortfeasor against whom subrogation is allowed as contemplated by NRS 616.560. We hold that SIIS may not subrogate against UM proceeds available to DeGrave through his employer's insurance policy. The remaining issue in this case has also been settled by Riveras. There, we held that an offset provision in the policy which reduces the insurance benefits by the amount the insured receives from SIIS is valid. Riveras, 107 Nev. at 534, 814 P.2d at 1018. The goal of UM coverage is to make the claimant whole. The offset clause prevents a double recovery by the claimant. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed.