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.
Where a gas station employee was struck and injured by a vehicle in a hit-and-run incident at his workplace and subsequently received more than $25,000 in workers’ compensation benefits, the employee’s auto insurance carrier was entitled, as a matter of law, to offset the full amount of benefits received by the policy-holder against its $25,000 obligation to pay uninsured motorist coverage, held an Illinois appellate court in a decision not designated for publication. The court looked to the auto policy provisions, which were abundantly clear and unambiguous. The policy provided that payments under the UM/UIM provision were to be reduced by sums paid because of the bodily injury or property damage under, inter alia, “workers’ compensation law.” That the employee had not and could not recover for pain and suffering in the workers’ compensation proceeding was not relevant, added the court.
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 State ex rel. First Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Stephens, 2021 IL App (3d) 200490-U, 2021 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1778 (Oct. 14, 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.