Police Officer Gets Runaround About Injury Claim ....files Suit Against All Involved

[BlockO]

Interesting story because of the dynamics involved.... A cop gets hit while directing traffic, but because he is working special duty, all insurance companies involved are denying the claim.

The driver who hit him only had state minimum limits (20/40 in WV). That was easily exhausted months ago.

Who pays the rest? health insurance or workers comp?

UPDATE: Police Officer Files Lawsuit Against Insurance Companies

"City leaders admit they've worried about a situation like this happening and are leaving the decision of who pays up to a judge."

 

[djs]

Well, this is easy.
The officers own insurance policy covers him while he is an independent contractor, as he was in this job.

It's not the police workers comp since he wasn't on duty.
It's usually not his health insurance, since its a work related injury.

This is a bad case of him not thinking through what it means to be an independent contractor.

Dan

 

[taterpeeler]

Well, this is easy.
The officers own insurance policy covers him while he is an independent contractor, as he was in this job.

It's not the police workers comp since he wasn't on duty.
It's usually not his health insurance, since its a work related injury.

This is a bad case of him not thinking through what it means to be an independent contractor.

Dan

ahh... but some plans state that you are not covered when engaging in activities for wage or profit... he may be SOL

we find this provision more so on group plans as they have workers comp.

 

[djs]

A lot of personal plans have that provision as well.

Of course, the driver is the one responsible to pay, but I assume they probably have no financial resources to do so.

Dan

 

[Guest]

I have a policy for cops working off duty, maybe states vary, but what we discovered is, he is techinically working off duty, but once they make any time of a police "action" then they immediately revert back to the city/counties insurance/workers comp.

Example, he is "standing by" at a construction site, not really doing anything, he is on the off duty insurance, but once he steps into traffic or witnesses a crash or whatever, then he immediately revertes to "on-duty" status and the govt's insurance status.

This has been "proven/accepted" in AZ. Remember, they are fully dressed as a cop.

Always made us wonder why the company for "off-duty" really needed the insurance......

 

[taterpeeler]

A lot of personal plans have that provision as well.

Of course, the driver is the one responsible to pay, but I assume they probably have no financial resources to do so.

Dan

very true, however Texas does not require workers comp and the provision states something about that like opting out or if no WC ... cant recall

 

[djs]

I agree, if he performs police action, he is back on duty. That makes sense.

In this case though, he was working as a contractor, which in my mind (don't know case law for any state on this) would mean he does not go back on duty, since he isn't on his own time to start with. He was already getting paid to do this job.

What I find confusing though, is he had his police cruiser with him. I'm wondering if he rented this from the city, or if he had it since he drives it home with him. Or if there is some deal the city allows this. I know this is pretty common practice, just don't know how it works.

I feel somewhat bad for the guy. He got caught up in trying to make ends meet for his family. Directing traffic can't be a lot of fun, I'm sure he was just trying to get a little extra holiday cash.

Dan

 

[wjw0006]

I believe that WV as many other states, have a fund for these types of situations along with uninsured situations.

I'd try his own personal carrier. If his UIM limits are higher than the 20/40 that the tortfeasor has, he can try to make a UIM claim and may be successful. Despite being a contractor, the insurer denying in this situation could have a fight if they try to deny......If this was in PA he could likely stack coverages which would be helpful. I do not believe you can stack in WV though.....

Technically not on duty, but if the police car was there and the police new about this and if he was in uniform, I think there is also a good chance that he will get paid from one of the insurer's that the police have.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By the way, those insurers that deny this better know what they are doing as West Virginia has a lot of bad faith suits where even claims managers at an insurance company can be named in the suit.

 

[djs]

Technically not on duty, but if the police car was there and the police new about this and if he was in uniform, I think there is also a good chance that he will get paid from one of the insurer's that the police have. ​

Why?
I'm sure if he was using the cruiser with city permission (and I'm sure this is the case), that he signed some sort of agreement that they have no responsibility.

Sort of like trying to blame Hertz because when you rented a car, when you were walking on the sidewalk, you got injured. The car had nothing to do with it.

​

 

[wjw0006]

I do not think that this case is that simple. Directing traffic is usually something done by police officers. He was on "special duty" which to me links him directing traffic to his work for the police which also direct traffic in some cases. My point regarding the cruiser and the uniform was that if he/she was in uniform while directing traffic with a cruiser nearby and was on "special duty", I think that the insurers for the police department are going to have a hard time letting this denial stick.

As soon as I saw "special duty" I got a feeling that somehow this is going to trickle back to the police department's insurance companies for the medical bills not covered by the tortfeasors auto insurance.