203 W. Va. 172 - Henry v. Benyo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he plain language of [W.Va.Code § 33-6-31(h)] prohibits an employee from collecting from his/her employer’s underin-sured motorist insurance coverage if his/ her injuries are already covered by workers’ compensation and if the accident is a result of the employer’s or a coemployee’s actions (i.e., “the employer’s liability”). Stated otherwise, if the employee’s injuries were caused by the employer, a coemploy-ee, or, possibly, by some inadvertence of the employee him/herself (as compared to a third-party stranger to the employment relationship) thereby rendering the employer ‘liable, ’ or ‘atfatdt, ’for the accident, the employee cannot collect workers’ compensation benefits and then seek an additional recovery from the employer just because the employer has motor vehicle insurance that coincidentally also covers the employee’s injuries. Rather, the employee is limited in his/her recovery to workers’ compensation benefits because of the immunity provided to employers and coemployees by the workers’ compensation statutes. ‡ $ $ $ Where, however, an employee’s work-related injuries are caused by a third-patty... [W.Va.Code § 33-6-31(h)] does not apply because the employer is not ‘liable’ for the accident. In this scenario, it is the third-patty who is technically ‘at fault’ fw the collision and residtant damages. Therefore, while the employee may recover workers’ compensation benefits for his/her injuries resulting from the accident which occurred in the course and scope of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 216 W. Va. 91 - Miralles v. Snoderly

2. “An employee who receives workers’ compensation benefits for injuries that result from a motor vehicle collision with a third-party which occurs within the course and scope of the employee’s employment is entitled to also assert, against his/her employer’s motor vehicle insurance carrier, a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, where the employee’s employer has in effect motor vehicle insurance providing underinsured motorist coverage and where the employee’s recovery against the third-party activates such underinsurance coverage.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 230 W. Va. 335 - Jenkins v. City of Elkins

3. “While this result seems to be patently unfair and to contravene simple logic, this outcome is indeed the one prescribed by the Legislature; Though equity dictates an injured employee should be permitted to obtain recoveries from varying sources to be “made whole” after his/her work-related accident, the Legislature has determined ■ the right of the Commissioner [now also private carrier or self-insured employer] to recover sums it has expended as workers’ compensation to be greater.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 237 W. Va. 512 - Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Jason D. and Andrea O'Neal