Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
BS-4362/2012-OLR ECLI:DK:OLR:2024:BS0000000507 AI generated

Court dismisses claim that employer's liability insurer must pay difference compensation to employee's own insurer.

Case Number BS-4362/2012-OLR
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Denmark (DK)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the employer's liability insurer must reimburse the employee's own insurer for difference compensation paid under the Liability Act. The plaintiff argued that the employer's insurer should cover the difference between the liability limit and the actual damages, while the opposing party contended the employee bears this cost. The court ruled that the statutory scheme places the burden of such difference compensation on the employee, not the employer's insurer, thereby rejecting the reimbursement request.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 100, s. 101 of the Liability Act; The employer's liability insurer is not liable to reimburse the employee's own insurer for difference compensation paid to the employee under the Liability Act.

Keywords

AI generated
Employer's Liability Act Difference Compensation Work Injury Insurance Reimbursement Claim Liability Limit Excess

Cited Legislation

AI generated
s. 100 of the Liability Act
s. 101 of the Liability Act
AI generated
BS-17/2014-HJR
Supreme Court allows employer's insurance company to recover overpaid difference compensation from employee's liability insurer.
BS-2677/2001-VLR
Employer acquitted of worker's injury claim; employer lacks liability for safety coordinator's negligence.
BS-2231/2017-GLO
Court allows deduction of severance pay from flexible job allowance under employment regulations.
BS-3334/2010-OLR
Insurance company allowed to recover costs from seller for gross negligence in failing to disclose property defects.
BS-102/2003-KOL
Court dismisses co-owner's claim against insurer when co-owner's intentional arson triggers policy exclusion.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Sagen vedrører spørgsmålet, om arbejdsskadeforsikringsselskabet med rette har udbetalt den forhøjede erstatning til det ansvarsforsikringsselskab, som på vegne af sagsøgers tidligere arbejdsgiver har udbetalt differenceerstatning efter erstatningsansvarsloven, eller om beløbet tilkommer sagsøger selv

[DOKUMENT] Afgørelse (15 sider) Sagsøger

Sagsøgeren Sgrs.

Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgeren Sgr.

Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgeren Fødselsdato

Sagsøgerens

Sagsøgeren Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgerens Sagsøgeren Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgerens

Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgeren Sagsøgerens

Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgeren Sagsøgeren Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgerens Sagsøgeren

Sagsøgeren