Workers Compensation Fund v. Utah Business Insurance Co.
296 P.3d 734
Utah2013Background
- Dual workers' compensation coverage existed for Pioneer Roofing: WCF policy (April 1, 2007–April 1, 2008) and UBIC policy with purported February 22, 2008 effective date overlapping WCF; both in effect when employee Antone was injured on March 21, 2008.
- WCF paid all medical expenses and benefits after notification of Antone’s injury.
- UBIC sought reimbursement after discovering overlapping coverage and sued UBIC to recover costs; Pioneer tried to have WCF cover the claim.
- UBIC proposed changing its policy effective date to March 31, 2008 and sought to rely on a targeted tender doctrine (insurer liability only if tendered by policyholder).
- District court granted partial summary judgment for WCF and denied UBIC’s summary judgment and 56(f) discovery motion; UBIC appealed.
- Utah Supreme Court holds targeted tender doctrine is incompatible with Utah workers’ compensation law and that UBIC and WCF are jointly liable, with equitable contribution due from UBIC to WCF.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether targeted tender applies to Utah workers’ compensation | UBIC: targeted tender should bar liability. | WCF: targeted tender allows insurers to avoid coverage. | Targeted tender rejected; not applicable to Utah workers’ comp. |
| Whether UBIC and WCF owe equitable contribution | WCF seeks contribution from UBIC for shared liability. | UBIC disputes shared liability due to non-tender. | UBIC and WCF are jointly liable; UBIC must contribute half of past and future benefits. |
| Whether district court erred in denying UBIC’s Rule 56(f) discovery | UBIC needed discovery on coverage intent to oppose summary judgment. | WCF argues discovery moot after rejection of targeted tender. | District court did not abuse discretion; discovery denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Touchard v. La-Z-Boy Inc., 2006 UT 71 (Utah 2006) (public policy of Utah workers’ compensation; statutory framework emphasis)
- Sharon Steel Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 931 P.2d 127 (Utah 1997) (equitable contribution supports prompt payments and shared liability)
- Am. States Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (equitable contribution among co-insurers when multiple coverages exist)
- City of Waldo v. Poetker, 628 S.W.2d 329 (Ark. 1982) (equitable apportionment among insurers when dual coverage exists)
- Cas. Indem. Exch. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 902 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Mont. 1995) (equitable contribution principle between liable insurers)
- John Burns Constr. Co. v. Ind. Ins. Co., 727 N.E.2d 211 (Ill. 2000) (targeted tender doctrine used as contrast in JP contexts)