[ad_1]
Where two insurance companies have requested a declaration that there is no duty to indemnify two homeowners for injuries suffered by a caregiver who fell on stairs in the home, the insurers should be denied summary judgment despite their argument that the caregiver was injured in the course of her employment.
“LM General Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Plaintiffs or Insurers) seek a declaration that there is no duty to indemnify Ernest Yeh and Mansim Cheng (Homeowners) for injuries suffered by Liyun Deng (Deng) under two policies of insurance. Deng, a caregiver for the Homeowners’ children, suffered bodily injury at Homeowner’s premises when she fell on the stairs on June 13, 2020. Deng was awarded workers’ compensation benefits via the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund and has filed a separate personal injury lawsuit against the Homeowners for which Plaintiffs have been providing a defense. The only issue in this case is whether similar exclusions in the two applicable insurance policies apply which bar coverage for bodily injury to ‘any person eligible to receive any benefits . . . required to be provided by the insured under any workers’ compensation law.’
“Insurers seek summary judgment arguing that, at the time of the accident, Deng was eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits and the exceptions apply. A person is eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits for personal injury that arose ‘out of and in the course of his employment.’ …
“As an initial matter, Plaintiffs concede that the decision of the Administrative Judge from the Department of Industrial Accidents ordering payment of temporary incapacity compensation and medical benefits has no preclusive effect here. Rather, Plaintiffs argue they have established a right to summary judgment because it is undisputed that Deng was injured in the course of her employment. I disagree. …
“Here, based on Homeowners’ depositions alone there are disputes of fact regarding whether Deng worked or was expected to work on the weekends when she stayed at the premises during the early period of the Covid-19 pandemic. Without limitation, the deposition of Mr. Yeh raises a significant dispute as to whether Deng worked or was expected to work on those weekends. …
“… Plaintiffs may be able to prove, through testimony at trial, that Deng’s presence at the premises on the weekends during the early period of Covid-19 was related to her employment and provided an advantage to the Homeowners. But that question is certainly not undisputed on this record. …”
LM General Insurance Company, et al. v. Yeh, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-111-24) (4 pages) (Squires-Lee, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 2384CV00027-BLS2) (Sept. 4, 2024).
[ad_2]
Source link