Court Opinion

ID: 9685275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:28:10.020563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:04.078622
License: Public Domain

Wright, J.,
concurring.
I concur only because the law as it presently exists requires this result. Normally, subrogation of workers’ compensation benefits is permitted so that the insurer can recover its compensation payments to the extent that such payments have also been received by the victim from the third-party tort-feasor. The result in this case is that the more the tort-feasor pays, the less the widow, who has never been fully compensated, receives.
Under the facts of this case, the widow obtained a judgment against the tort-feasor in the amount of $750,000. The tort-feasor’s insurer paid $100,000, which the widow receives. This $100,000 is deducted from the $250,000 underinsurance benefit, and the widow is paid $150,000 from the deceased’s employer’s underinsured coverage. However, the law also permits the workers’ compensation carrier (Tri-State) to subrogate the $100,000 received from the tort-feasor against the workers’ compensation payments. The widow nets $250,000 in underinsured benefits and $80,000 in workers’ compensation benefits, for a total of $330,000.
Had the tort-feasor paid $10,000, the widow would still receive $250,000 in underinsured benefits, but the workers’ compensation carrier could subrogate only the $10,000 from the tort-feasor. The result is that the widow would receive $90,000 more in workers’ compensation benefits, or a total of $420,000 as compensation for the loss.
If the victim has been fully compensated by other sources, the workers’ compensation insurer should get its money back *12because the workers’ compensation payments would amount to a double recovery. Here, subrogation takes away benefits from the family of a victim that has not been fully compensated for its loss.
White, C.J., joins in this concurrence.