Baker v. Safety Source Northeast
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59644
D.R.I.2011Background
- Baker, a Rhode Island resident, worked for Safety Source Northeast (Massachusetts corp) and was injured in Massachusetts on December 17, 2002 while in the course of her employment.
- The Safety Source vehicle was a covered auto under a St. Paul Travelers policy issued to Safety Source, with UIM endorsement MM 99 54 09 98 and a $79 premium; UIM coverage was up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident.
- Baker settled the tortfeasor claim for $20,000 and then settled a UIM claim with her insurer for $25,000; she also began receiving Rhode Island workers’ compensation benefits for the injury.
- Baker sought UIM coverage under Safety Source’s policy with St. Paul; St. Paul denied the UIM claim.
- The policy covered the vehicle during December 12, 2002 to December 12, 2003, and Baker was acting within the scope of employment at the time of injury.
- Massachusetts law governs the interpretation of the contract because Safety Source is a Massachusetts corporation and the policy was executed in Massachusetts; the pivotal issue is whether Safety Source’s UIM coverage was explicitly purchased to protect employees injured on the job.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was UIM coverage explicitly purchased to cover employees on the job? | Baker argues the endorsement applies to employees; the policy shows explicit intent to cover employees. | St. Paul contends there was no explicit purchase for employee-only coverage; the endorsement does not prove explicit intent. | No explicit purchase; Baker's claim fails. |
| Does the workers’ compensation exclusivity bar preclude UIM when benefits are collected? | The First Circuit carved out a narrow exception for explicitly purchased UIM coverage and workers’ compensation overlap. | Massachusetts exclusivity bars double recovery unless explicit purchase shows intent to cover employees; here it does not. | St. Paul granted summary judgment; exclusivity bars Baker's UIM claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Figaratto, 423 Mass. 346 (1996) (carve-out: explicit purchase of UIM for employee coverage)
- Berger v. H.P. Hood, Inc., 416 Mass. 652 (1993) (exclusivity bars UIM when injury occurs in course of employment)
- Baker v. St. Paul Travelers Ins. Co., 595 F.3d 391 (1st Cir. 2010) (explicit-purchase inquiry on UIM coverage for employees)