Utah Supreme Court weighs whether UIM claims are barred by workers' compensation benefits in Hinton v. Midwest Family Mutual

The Utah Supreme Court heard argument in Hinton v. Midwest Family Mutual Insurance over whether benefits described in the Workers' Compensation Act can be excluded from recovery under underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage when those benefits are “paid or payable” or otherwise listed in the statute.

Mark Anderson, counsel for appellant Haley Hinton, told the court that UIM exists to compensate accident victims when a responsible driver’s liability insurance is insufficient and that the district court improperly foreclosed Hinton’s UIM claims by treating certain categories as categorically unavailable. "The problem with the exhaustion language in Rutherford," Anderson said, referring to Rutherford v. Truck Insurance Exchange, "is that it doesn't really make sense in the context of Utah workers' compensation" because the Labor Commission has continuing jurisdiction and benefits are rarely finally "exhausted." He urged a test that would deduct from UIM only amounts that have been paid, ordered by the Labor Commission, or agreed to by the workers' compensation carrier, rather than depriving claimants of relief when workers' compensation outcomes remain uncertain.

Katya Conrad, counsel for appellee Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Company, defended the district court’s approach and urged the court to uphold the ruling that UIM "does not cover any benefit paid or payable under the Workers' Compensation Act," a reading that the district court applied to past and future medical expenses and two-thirds of lost wages. Conrad emphasized legislative history and a more recent statutory amendment that removed the words "paid or payable" and speaks instead of benefits "provided by the workers' compensation insurance carrier," arguing that the amendment clarifies the legislature intended certain categories to fall within the workers' compensation framework and the Labor Commission’s remedial authority.

Justices pressed both sides on practical consequences. Several asked whether reading "payable" broadly would force claimants to litigate workers' compensation claims before pursuing UIM relief—creating risks that UIM claims could become time-barred (UIM claims must be filed within three years of the accident) or require duplicative proceedings. Anderson responded that placing such a burden on injured plaintiffs would be onerous and prejudicial in cases like Hinton’s, where the workers' compensation carrier had closed the file after paying some benefits.

Counsel and justices also discussed scenarios where a UIM arbitration concludes before a later Labor Commission determination that limits or denies workers' compensation benefits; the parties debated whether subrogation, statutory rules, or other mechanisms would prevent double recovery or leave claimants without a remedy. Conrad pointed to statutory separation of categories (for example, pain and suffering is available under UIM but not under workers' compensation) and to the legislative amendment permitting concurrent proceedings as evidence the legislature intended categorical allocation of certain benefits to workers' compensation.

The court questioned whether the amendment’s language "provided by the workers' compensation insurance carrier" is merely descriptive or has an operative effect and whether the amendment should be read as a clarification of the prior statute or a substantive change. Both sides urged the justices to consider the practicalities of ongoing workers' compensation claims (temporary total disability, medical-stability timing, impairment ratings) and the policy goal of avoiding double recovery.

The justices heard extended colloquy on the interplay of statutory text, legislative history, and potential evidentiary difficulties when a workers' compensation matter is unresolved. Neither side advocated a specific remedy beyond arguing for its preferred statutory reading. After argument the court took the matter under advisement.

The case will be decided on the record and briefs; the court’s resolution could change how Utah courts and arbitrators treat overlapping claims for medical expenses and lost wages when both UIM and workers' compensation might apply.