Opinion ID: 1801674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: analysis of widow's cross-appeal

Text: In her cross-appeal, the widow alleges that the district court erred in failing to award her the total $250,000 limit of the underinsured motorist provision. At the time in question, § 60-578 provided, in relevant part: (1) The maximum liability of the insurer under the underinsured motorist coverage shall be the lesser of: (a) The difference between the limit of underinsured motorist coverage and the amount paid to the insured by or for any person or organization which may be held legally liable for the bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death.... . . . . (2) In no event shall the liability of the insurer under such coverage be more than the limits of the underinsured motorist coverage provided. The district court thus concluded that the liability of the defendant in this case is the difference between the limit of underinsured motorist coverage ($250,000.00) and the amount paid to the plaintiff on behalf of the tortfeasor ($100,000.00), which liability, therefore, exists in the amount of $150,000.00. The widow argues that the $100,000 paid in satisfaction of the judgment in her favor into the repository of the Colfax County District Court has not been paid to the insured, as required by statute. She therefore urges that there should be no reduction. That argument has no merit, for the $100,000 paid to the court clerk accrues to the widow's benefit, subject to whatever subrogation rights Tri-State may have. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-118 (Reissue 1993) (stating when third person liable to employee or dependents for injury or death, employer subrogated to right of employee or dependents against such third person). Tri-State, on the other hand, argues that as the widow has been paid $100,000 by the tort-feasors' insurer and will receive workers' compensation benefits ... valued at $180,000.00, supplemental brief for appellant at 3, she has been paid $280,000. It then concludes that it has no liability under § 60-578. But Tri-State's position overlooks that workers' compensation benefits are not amounts paid to the insured by or for any person or organization which may be held legally liable for the bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death. In the present instance, this language applies only to the amount paid by the tort-feasors' insurer. It therefore follows that the district court did not err in awarding the widow $150,000.