What does 'payable' mean in Utah's underinsured motorist statute? Midwest v. Hinton Explained

In Midwest v. Hinton, the Utah Supreme Court clarified a critical issue for practitioners handling underinsured motorist claims involving work-related injuries: what does “payable” mean when determining coordination of benefits between workers’ compensation and underinsured motorist coverage?

Background and Facts

Haylee Hinton was driving her employer’s van when she crashed into a motorist who ran a red light. Hinton first sought workers’ compensation benefits, receiving $11,225.56, though the parties disputed why her claim ended. She then obtained a $50,000 policy-limits settlement from the at-fault driver’s insurer and submitted an underinsured motorist claim to Midwest Family Mutual Insurance. Midwest responded by seeking a declaratory judgment limiting the damages Hinton could recover in arbitration.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was interpreting Utah Code section 31A-22-305.3(4)(c)(i), which provides that underinsured motorist coverage “does not cover any benefit paid or payable under Title 34A, Chapter 2, Workers’ Compensation Act.” The district court interpreted “payable” to mean all categories of damages potentially recoverable under workers’ compensation, regardless of whether they were actually recoverable in Hinton’s specific case.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court rejected the district court’s interpretation, holding that “payable” means benefits that can or may be paid to a specific claimant in a particular case, not categories of damages theoretically available under workers’ compensation. The Court emphasized that the statute’s reference to a “covered person” indicates the Legislature intended a case-specific analysis rather than a categorical exclusion. The Court also noted that the 2018 legislative amendments were designed to prevent double recovery while ensuring claimants need not exhaust workers’ compensation before seeking underinsured motorist benefits.

Practice Implications

This decision requires practitioners to take a more nuanced approach to coordination of benefits between workers’ compensation and underinsured motorist coverage. Rather than applying blanket exclusions for categories of damages available under workers’ compensation, courts must examine what benefits are actually payable to the specific claimant. This may require full adjudication of workers’ compensation claims before determining available underinsured motorist benefits, potentially affecting case timing and strategy.