Medders v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
I
Involved in the dispute presently before the Court is whether the exclusivity of our worker's compensation statutory scheme bars recovery under an employer's uninsured motorist coverage (UM) where the uninsured motorist is uninsured only because he is a fellow employee acting in the course and scope of his employment. Resolution of that question requires us to interpret the words "legally entitled to recover" as used in the statute defining those claims for which uninsured motorist insurance is compelled. The trial court issued an order granting summary judgment denying coverage. We affirm.
II
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Feres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Brown v. Credit Center, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1983
- Uptegraft v. Home Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
- Gov. Emp. Ins. Co. v. BrownMississippi Supreme Court · 1984
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. BoyntonSupreme Court of Florida · 1986
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- City of Jackson v. PerryMississippi Supreme Court · 2000
- Russell v. OrrMississippi Supreme Court · 1997
- Hurdle v. HollowayMississippi Supreme Court · 2003
- Matarese v. New Hampshire Municipal Ass'n Property-Liability Insurance Trust, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 2002
- Peaster v. David New Drilling Co., Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1994
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.