Court Opinion

ID: 7821992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:58:04.542113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:45.629592
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, dissenting. The majority correctly held that there was dual coverage in this case. However, they were incorrect in not holding the State and Home Insurance Company each liable for the entire amount. The Workers’ Compensation Act sets maximum and minimum benefits for which an employer will be liable. This provision is a limitation on the coverage required to be carried by the employer, but it is not a limitation on coverage employers may wish to provide for their employees. There is nothing in the statute or public policy which prevents an employer from providing benefits in excess of those provided by Workers’ Compensation. It is undisputed that the City of Waldo paid both Home Insprance Company and the State for coverage. It is undisputed that both Home Insurance Company and the State accepted this money and provided the coverage. It is also undisputed that if there were no coverage by Home Insurance Company, the State would have to pay the dependency benefits and vice versa. Therefore, the full amount of these dependency benefits should be recovered from both Home Insurance Company and the State.