Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

School's policy excludes bus driver injured at 2nd job

In Indiana, an employee with a second job may not be able to recover medical benefits for an auto accident that occurred during his second job.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Schilling v. Huntington County Community School Corp., et al., No. 35A02-0803-CV-191 (Ind. Ct. App. 12/18/08).

Ruling: The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment for the employer, finding a clause in the claimant's health care plan clearly and unambiguously excluded him from coverage.

What it means: In Indiana, where a school's health care plan provides that individuals who could otherwise be covered by workers' compensation are not covered under the terms of plan, an employee with a second job may not be able to recover medical benefits for an auto accident that occurred during his second job.

Summary: The claimant worked as a bus driver for the school approximately half of the year and was self-employed as a farmer the rest of the year. He was injured in an auto accident while hauling grain to the market during his time off from bus driving and sought medical benefits under the school's health plan. Even though he was covered by the health plan, the school denied coverage. The school's plan included an exclusionary clause, which essentially provided that an injury resulting from secondary employment which could be covered by workers' compensation, whether or not workers' compensation had actually been purchased, was not covered by the plan.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the school's argument that the policy's language was unambiguous as required under Indiana law. The court pointed out that under Indiana law, carriers are free to limit coverage, as long as all exceptions, limitations, and exclusions are plainly expressed, and any exclusionary clauses "clearly and unmistakably" express the particular act or omission that triggers the exclusion.

February 17, 2009

Copyright 2009© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.