![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Colorado’s exclusivity rule is sufficiently broad so as to bar an injured employee from recovering damages via the uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist coverage of a co-employee’s auto policy, held the Supreme Court of Colorado. As long as the allegedly negligent act occurred within the course and scope of the co-employee’s employment, that co-employee enjoyed broad immunity from suit. Allowing recovery under the co-employee’s UM/UIM coverage would be a direct conflict with the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the co-Editor-in-Chief and Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law(LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Ryser v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 CO 11, 2021 Colo. LEXIS 102 (Feb. 16, 2021)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 110.05.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.