2021 CO 11
Colo.2021Background
- Kent Ryser was injured while a passenger in a coworker Babion's car driven by coworker Forster; all were acting within the course and scope of employment when Forster fell asleep and crashed.
- Ryser received workers' compensation benefits for his work-related injuries and recovered UM/UIM benefits from his own auto insurer.
- Ryser sued Shelter Mutual (Babion's insurer) for UM/UIM benefits under the Shelter policy as an insured passenger; Shelter denied coverage.
- District court granted summary judgment for Shelter; a unanimous Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Ryser sought certiorari.
- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Act exclusivity and co-employee immunity bar Ryser’s UM/UIM claim against a co-employee vehicle owner’s insurer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employee injured in a work-related crash caused by a co-worker can recover UM/UIM benefits from the vehicle owner’s insurer when WCA immunity applies | Ryser: "legally entitled to recover/collect" means only that he can prove the driver’s fault and his damages, so procedural immunity should not bar UM/UIM recovery | Shelter: statutory phrases require being legally able to recover from the tortfeasor; WCA co-employee immunity prevents recovery from the at-fault co-worker, so no UM/UIM coverage | Held: Claim barred—WCA exclusivity and co-employee immunity preclude UM/UIM suit against co-employee vehicle owner’s insurer on these facts |
| Whether statutory phrases "legally entitled to recover" and "legally entitled to collect" require substantive right to sue (not just proof of fault and damages) | Ryser: Phrases require only proof of fault and damages; insurer does not "step into the shoes" of tortfeasor for immunity purposes | Shelter: Phrases incorporate substantive defenses; if action against tortfeasor is barred, UM/UIM does not arise | Held: Court did not definitively resolve the textual dispute; even assuming Ryser's narrower reading, WCA exclusivity/immunity still bars recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Kandt v. Evans, 645 P.2d 1300 (Colo. 1982) (WCA exclusivity and quid pro quo extends and limits common-law remedies).
- Kelly v. Mile Hi Single Ply, Inc., 890 P.2d 1161 (Colo. 1995) (WCA immunity extends to co-employees).
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. McMichael, 906 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1995) (interpretation of UM/UIM coverage clauses and who qualifies as an insured).
- Borjas v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 33 P.3d 1265 (Colo. App. 2001) (UM/UIM recovery where governmental immunity issues differ; distinguishable).
- American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ashour, 410 P.3d 753 (Colo. App. 2017) (distinguishes recovery under one’s own policy from recovery under employer/co-employee policies vis-a-vis WCA immunity).
- Cont'l Divide Ins. Co. v. Dickinson, 179 P.3d 202 (Colo. App. 2007) (WCA immunities play a pivotal role in workers’ compensation scheme).
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258 (Colo. 1985) (employer and insurer immunity when employer complies with WCA).