Opinion ID: 2548987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: should the arbitration award be reduced by the worker's compensation benefits only to the extent to prohibit double recovery?

Text: Reichert argues that the arbitration award should only be reduced by the worker's compensation benefits that would avoid double recovery. The district court concluded that the policy language required that the amount be reduced by the total benefits received. It is the function of the Court to construe a contract of insurance as it is written, and the Court by construction cannot create a liability not assumed by the insurer, nor make a new contract for the parties, or one different from that plainly intended, nor add words to the contract of insurance to either create or avoid liability. Kromrei v. AID Ins. Co., 110 Idaho 549, 551-52, 716 P.2d 1321, 1323-24 (1986) (quoting Unigard Ins. Group v. Royal Globe, Etc., 100 Idaho 123, 128, 594 P.2d 633 (1979); Miller v. World Ins. Co., 76 Idaho 355, 357, 283 P.2d 581, 582 (1955)). Worker's compensation benefits are not all inclusive of potential losses employees may suffer. Worker's compensation benefits include lost wages, medical costs, and other expenses, but exclude pain, suffering, and property damage, which are recoverable in tort. I.C. § 72-1019. The uninsured motorist coverage Reichert's employer chose to purchase provides additional coverage for losses not covered by worker's compensation. Given its plain and ordinary meaning the policy requires that all sums paid by worker's compensation, regardless if it prevents double recovery, must be deducted from the coverage provided for under the policy. The district court's decision is affirmed.