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.
In a decision that held just the opposite of the case construing Colorado law (immediately above), the Delaware Supreme Court reversing rulings in two consolidated cases, held that two workers who sustained injuries in work-related automobile accidents may proceed against their employer’s automobile liability insurer under the respective underinsured motorist provisions. The Court employed different rationale than had the U.S. District Court in Colorado. The Delaware high court reasoned that an insurance company that issues an automobile liability policy insuring an employer’s vehicles with coverage including underinsured-motorist coverage is not an “employer” under the Workers’ Compensation Act. It could, therefore, enjoy no immunity based on the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the 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 Henry v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2019 Del. LEXIS 292 (June 11, 2019)
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