Court Opinion

ID: 9541798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:28:44.465618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:51.718969
License: Public Domain

GRODIN, J.
I concur in the court’s holdings and reasoning as to the collateral estoppel issue (part III-A), and as to the scope of Sentry’s employer’s liability coverage (part I3I-B-1), and on those grounds I concur in the judgment. As the court observes {ante, p. 916), employers’ liability insurance appears in workers’ compensation policies as a “gap-filler,” providing protection where the employee has a right to sue despite the exclu*918sivity provisions of the workers’ compensation statute, and the workers’ compensation exclusion serves to make that additionally clear.
I do not agree, however, with the unnecessary dictum that the workers’ compensation exclusion would operate to deny coverage even “assuming arguendo, that the first paragraph of Sentry’s employers’ liability coverage clause applied in this case.” (Ante, p. 915.) If we were seriously to indulge that assumption (which we all agree is incorrect), I should think Producers would be entitled to indemnification for tort damages notwithstanding Sentry’s payment of workers’ compensation benefits for LAS Corporation.
Bird, C. J., concurred.