Opinion ID: 1954272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Employee's comparative fault.

Text: The district court determined the State's lien should be reduced by Sourbier's comparative fault as determined by the jury. We have recently decided this issue. In Fisher, we were faced with whether an insurer's lien is to be reduced by the percentage of fault allocated to the employee. We held: The insurer's right of indemnity under [section 85.22(1)] is against the worker's entire recovery, which has already been reduced because of the worker's comparative fault. That reduction is not to be factored into the indemnity calculation because there is no correlation between the liability of the third party and the obligation of the insurer to the worker. Fisher, 485 N.W.2d at 629. [2] Accordingly, we affirmed the trial court's refusal to reduce the indemnity award on the basis of the employee's comparative fault. The district court erred in reducing the State's lien by twenty percent for Sourbier's comparative fault.