Midwest v. Hinton
Midwest v. Hinton, 2025 UT 4 (Pearce, J.)
Civil/Civil Procedure
The Utah Supreme Court held:
- The district court had jurisdiction to determine what workers’ compensation benefits were “payable” to Employee.
- The district court erred when it interpreted “payable” to mean all categories of damages that workers’ compensation has the statutory ability to cover, even if workers’ compensation has determined that it will not provide those damages to a particular claimant.
- Practice tip: Under Utah Code section 31A-22-305.3(4)(i) (the Underinsured Motorist Statute), “payable” means benefits that can or may be paid, or are capable of being paid, to a claimant in a particular case.