Secura Supreme Insurance Company v. The Estate of Daniel Keith Huck, 966 N.W.2d 124

Daniel Huck was killed while working; tortfeasor’s insurer paid $25,000 to his estate.
Huck’s employer’s worker’s compensation (WC) payer initially paid $35,798.04 to the Estate.
Under Wis. Stat. §102.29 the Estate had to reimburse the WC payer $9,718.73 from the tort settlement, leaving a net WC recovery to the Estate of $26,079.31.
Huck had $250,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage with Secura; the Estate made a UIM claim.
Secura sought to reduce its UIM limits by the $9,718.73 that the WC payer had paid and then been reimbursed (i.e., by the gross payment rather than the net amount the Estate actually received).
The circuit court awarded the Estate the disputed $9,718.73; Secura appealed and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Secura)	Defendant's Argument (Estate)	Held
Whether an insurer may reduce UIM limits by worker’s compensation amounts that were paid to a WC payer and later reimbursed (i.e., reduce by the gross payment instead of the net amount the injured person actually received).	The reducing clause and statute allow reduction by amounts paid by the WC payer, even if those sums were subsequently reimbursed to the WC payer.	Reduction is limited to the worker’s compensation amounts actually received by the insured/heirs/estate; sums paid and then repaid do not reduce UIM limits.	Affirmed for the Estate: insurer may reduce limits only by the total WC actually received by the Estate (not by amounts that were paid and then reimbursed).

Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 293 Wis. 2d 123 (2006) (UM/UIM limits may be reduced only by WC amounts actually paid to the insured, the insured’s heirs, or the insured’s estate)
Welin v. American Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 292 Wis. 2d 73 (2006) (explaining the statutory purpose of providing a predetermined, fixed level of UM/UIM coverage)
Dempich v. Pekin Ins. Co., 289 Wis. 2d 477 (2006) (appellate decision consistent with reducing limits by net WC recovery)