Kent RYSER v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-05-22">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/890110722" data-vids="890110722" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">480 P.3d 1286</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Kent RYSER</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>,</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 19SC530</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">February 16, 2021</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">Rehearing Denied March 8, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="187" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="187" data-sentence-id="187" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Killian Davis Richter & Mayle, PC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Nicholas W. Mayle</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Damon Davis</span></span>, Grand Junction, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="304" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="304" data-sentence-id="304" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Morgan Rider Riter Tsai, P.C.</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Sophia H. Tsai</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Kelly L. Kafer</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="409" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="409" data-sentence-id="409" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amici Curiae</span> American Property Casualty Insurance Association</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado Defense Lawyers Association</span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Evan B. Stephenson</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Kayla L. Scroggins-Uptigrove</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="622" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="622" data-sentence-id="622" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyerrole">Amicus Curiae</span> Colorado Trial Lawyers Association</span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Jordan Herington & Rowley</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Michael J. Rosenberg</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Greenwood Village</span>, Colorado, <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Law Offices of Richard M. Crane</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Richard M. Crane</span></span>, Denver, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="831" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="831" data-sentence-id="831" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="838" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (GABRIEL)"><span data-paragraph-id="838" data-sentence-id="838" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">GABRIEL</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="889" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="889" data-sentence-id="889" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_889"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">This case</span> requires <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to address the interplay between the uninsured/underinsured motorist <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"UM/UIM"</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_889"><span class="ldml-cite">section 10-4-609</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>, and the <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_889"><span class="ldml-cite">Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"WCA"</span>)</span></span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">,</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/1033737155" data-vids="1033737155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_889"><span class="ldml-cite">sections 8-41-102</span></a></span></span> and - 104, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2020</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="889" data-sentence-id="1135" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> must decide whether an injured passenger riding in a vehicle negligently driven by one co-worker and owned by another co-worker, when all three were acting within the course and scope of their employment, may recover UM/UIM benefits under the vehicle owner's insurance policy.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="1429" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1429" data-sentence-id="1429" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1429"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> Although <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> dispute the meaning of the phrases <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect"</span> under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1429"><span class="ldml-cite">section 10-4-609</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not resolve that dispute here because assuming without deciding that <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">Kent Ryser</span>'s interpretation</span> is correct, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> still cannot prevail.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1429" data-sentence-id="1755" class="ldml-sentence">In particular, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that an injured co-worker is barred by operation of the WCA's exclusivity and co-employee immunity principles from recovering UM/UIM benefits from a co-employee vehicle owner's insurer for damages stemming from a work-related accident in which another co-employee negligently drove the owner's vehicle and the injured <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> was an authorized passenger.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2134" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2134" data-sentence-id="2134" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2134"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm the decision of the division below, although our reasoning differs somewhat from that of the division.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_2262" data-ordinal_start="1" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-types="background" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="1" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" id="heading_2262" data-specifier="I"><span data-paragraph-id="2262" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="2262" data-sentence-id="2262" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2262" data-sentence-id="2265" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="2293" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2293" data-sentence-id="2293" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2293"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> Ryser and two of his co-workers, <span class="ldml-entity">Linda Forster</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">Sherri Babion</span>, were returning together in Babion's vehicle from a work trip.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2293" data-sentence-id="2424" class="ldml-sentence">With Babion's permission, Forster was driving, and Ryser was a passenger in the back seat.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2293" data-sentence-id="2515" class="ldml-sentence">During this trip, all three were acting within the course and scope of their employment.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2603" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2603" data-sentence-id="2603" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2603"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> Forster fell asleep at the wheel and lost control of the vehicle, after which the vehicle spun off the road and struck an embankment and a fence before coming to rest.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2603" data-sentence-id="2774" class="ldml-sentence">As a result of this accident, Ryser suffered significant injuries.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2840" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2840" data-sentence-id="2840" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2840"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> Because the crash occurred while Ryser was on the job, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was entitled to and received workers' compensation benefits for <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_2965" data-val="1288" data-vol="480" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d"></span> the injuries that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> sustained as a result of the accident.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2840" data-sentence-id="3026" class="ldml-sentence">Ryser also sought and received UM/UIM benefits from his own auto insurance policy, on the ground that the WCA co-employee immunity rule effectively rendered Forster an uninsured motorist.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3213" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3213" data-sentence-id="3213" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3213"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> In addition to receiving workers' compensation benefits from his employer and UM/UIM benefits from his own insurer, Ryser sought UM/UIM benefits from Babion's auto insurer, <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Shelter Mutual Insurance Company</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3213" data-sentence-id="3433" class="ldml-sentence">In his view, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was entitled to such benefits because, as an authorized passenger in the vehicle, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was an insured under the Shelter policy.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3213" data-sentence-id="3575" class="ldml-sentence">Shelter denied Ryser's claim, however, and Ryser brought this action against Shelter to recover, among other things, UM/UIM benefits under the Shelter policy.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3733" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="3733" data-sentence-id="3733" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3733"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> Both <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> moved for summary judgment, and neither <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> disputed Forster's fault or Ryser's damages.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3733" data-sentence-id="3840" class="ldml-sentence">As pertinent here, Ryser asserted that because Forster was immune under the WCA for her tortious conduct while acting within the course and scope of her employment, <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> was effectively uninsured and therefore Ryser, as an insured under Babion's Shelter policy, was entitled to seek UM/UIM benefits from Shelter.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3733" data-sentence-id="4152" class="ldml-sentence">Shelter responded, however, that under the plain language of its policy and <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4152"><span class="ldml-cite">sections 10-4-609<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span> and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>, it is required to pay UM/UIM benefits only when an insured is <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect"</span> from the owner or operator of the vehicle.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3733" data-sentence-id="4429" class="ldml-sentence">Because the WCA rendered Forster immune from liability, Shelter contended that Ryser was not legally entitled to recover or collect from her.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3733" data-sentence-id="4571" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, in Shelter's view, Babion's policy did not provide coverage for Ryser's UM/UIM claim.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4662" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4662" data-sentence-id="4662" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4662"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> agreed with Shelter and granted its <span class="ldml-entity">summary judgment motion</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4662" data-sentence-id="4745" class="ldml-sentence">Ryser then appealed, arguing that the phrases <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect"</span> require only that the insured be able to establish fault on the part of the uninsured motorist and the extent of the insured's resulting damages.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5000" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5000" data-sentence-id="5000" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5000"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10 A</span></a></span> division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> ultimately disagreed and, in a unanimous, published decision, affirmed <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s grant of summary judgment.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5000" data-sentence-id="5158" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:ryservsheltermutinsco,2019coa88" data-prop-ids="sentence_5158"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ryser v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 COA 88</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5158"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 1</span></a></span></span>, 46, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_5158"><span class="ldml-cite">––– P.3d ––––</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5000" data-sentence-id="5228" class="ldml-sentence">As pertinent here, the division concluded that because the WCA co-employee immunity rule precluded Ryser from recovering damages from Forster, under the plain language of Babion's policy with Shelter and <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5228"><span class="ldml-cite">section 10-4-609</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover damages"</span> from Forster)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5000" data-sentence-id="5562" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5228"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 37</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5000" data-sentence-id="5575" class="ldml-sentence">In reaching this conclusion, the division found persuasive the view of a number of out-of-state authorities and legal commentators that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover,"</span> as those phrases are used in <span class="ldml-entity">statutes</span> like <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5575"><span class="ldml-cite">sections 10-4-609<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span> and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>, require that the insured show not only that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> suffered damages caused by the fault of an uninsured motorist, but also that the insured's action against the uninsured motorist was not barred under substantive law <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., that the motorist was legally subject to liability)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5000" data-sentence-id="6132" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5575"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 38 -39</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6149" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6149" data-sentence-id="6149" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6149"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> Ryser petitioned <span class="ldml-entity">this court</span> for certiorari, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted his petition.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_6225" data-ordinal_start="2" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="II. Analysis" data-types="analysis" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="2" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" id="heading_6225" data-specifier="II"><span data-paragraph-id="6225" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="6225" data-sentence-id="6225" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6225" data-sentence-id="6229" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="6237" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6237" data-sentence-id="6237" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6237"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by setting forth the applicable standards governing our review of <span class="ldml-entity">motions for summary judgment</span> and statutory construction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6237" data-sentence-id="6373" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then proceed to discuss the interplay between the exclusivity provisions of the WCA and the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6237" data-sentence-id="6484" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> conclude, on <span class="ldml-entity">the facts presented</span> here, that the WCA's exclusivity and co-employee immunity principles preclude Ryser from bringing a UM/UIM benefits action against a co-employee vehicle owner's insurer for damages stemming from a work-related accident caused by the negligent driving of another co-employee.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-id="heading_6794" data-ordinal_start="1" data-confidences="high" data-value="A. Applicable Legal Standards" data-types="backgroundlaw" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="1" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="A. Applicable Legal Standards" id="heading_6794" data-specifier="A"><span data-paragraph-id="6794" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="6794" data-sentence-id="6794" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6794" data-sentence-id="6797" class="ldml-sentence">Applicable Legal Standards</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="6823" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6823" data-sentence-id="6824" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6824"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> review a grant of summary judgment de novo.</span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_6875" data-val="1289" data-vol="480" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6875" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="6875" data-sentence-id="6876" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886163112" data-vids="886163112" class="ldml-reference"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Rocky Mountain Expl., Inc. v. Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2018 CO 54</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 27</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886163112" data-vids="886163112" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">420 P.3d 223, 229</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6875" data-sentence-id="6970" class="ldml-sentence">When, as in <span class="ldml-entity">the case before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span></span>, the material facts are undisputed, summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings and supporting documents show that the moving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6875" data-sentence-id="7189" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886163112" data-vids="886163112" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6970"><span class="ldml-cite">Id.</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal">accord</span></i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6970"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 56<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(c)</span></span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6875" data-sentence-id="7218" class="ldml-sentence">In determining whether summary judgment is warranted, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> must grant the nonmoving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the undisputed facts, and it must resolve all doubts against the moving <span class="ldml-entity">party</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6875" data-sentence-id="7464" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886163112" data-vids="886163112" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7218"><span class="ldml-refname">Rocky Mountain Expl., Inc.</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7218"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 27</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/886163112" data-vids="886163112" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">420 P.3d at 229</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7514" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="7515" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7515"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="7581" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888909510" data-vids="888909510" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7515"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dep't of Revenue v. Agilent Techs., Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2019 CO 41</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7515"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 16</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888909510" data-vids="888909510" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">441 P.3d 1012, 1016</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="7662" class="ldml-sentence">In construing <span class="ldml-entity">a statute</span>, our aim is to effectuate <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s intent.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="7738" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888909510" data-vids="888909510" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7662"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="7742" class="ldml-sentence">In doing so, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> consider the entire <span class="ldml-entity">statutory scheme</span> to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> construe words and phrases in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="7956" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888909510" data-vids="888909510" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7742"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="7960" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> will look to the statutory language <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"to determine whether public policy affects our construction of an insurance provision."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="8101" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887736061" data-vids="887736061" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7960"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pinnacol Assurance v. Hoff</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2016 CO 53</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7960"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 48</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887736061" data-vids="887736061" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">375 P.3d 1214, 1223</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="8168" class="ldml-sentence">If the statutory language is clear, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> will apply it as written.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7514" data-sentence-id="8233" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887736061" data-vids="887736061" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8168"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_end="2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-value="B. The WCA and the UM/UIM Statute" data-id="heading_8236" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="B. The WCA and the UM/UIM Statute" id="heading_8236" data-specifier="B"><span data-paragraph-id="8236" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="8236" data-sentence-id="8236" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8236" data-sentence-id="8239" class="ldml-sentence">The WCA and the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">Statute</span></span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="8269" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8269" data-sentence-id="8269" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8269"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> Ryser contends that the division below erred in concluding that the WCA's exclusivity and co-employee immunity principles preclude him from recovering UM/UIM benefits from a co-worker's insurer when <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was injured in an accident caused by a different co-worker's negligent driving of the insured co-worker's vehicle.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8589" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8589" data-sentence-id="8589" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8589"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> As noted above, <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> implicates the interplay between the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8589"><span class="ldml-cite">section 10-4-609</span></a></span>, and the WCA, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/1033737155" data-vids="1033737155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8589"><span class="ldml-cite">sections 8-41-102</span></a></span> and - 104.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8589" data-sentence-id="8732" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> begin with the applicable statutory provisions.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8795" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8795" data-sentence-id="8795" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8795"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8795"><span class="ldml-cite">Section 10-4-609</span></a></span> provides, in pertinent part:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_8844" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="8844" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span> No automobile liability or motor vehicle liability policy insuring against loss resulting from liability imposed by law for bodily injury ... suffered by any person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor vehicle licensed for highway use in this state unless coverage is provided therein or supplemental thereto ... for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are <i class="ldml-italics">legally entitled to recover damages</i> from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death, resulting therefrom ....</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_9513" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="9513" class="ldml-sentence">....</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_9517" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="9517" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span> Uninsured motorist coverage shall include coverage for damage for bodily injury or death that an insured is <i class="ldml-italics">legally entitled to collect</i> from the owner or driver of an underinsured motor vehicle.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="9715" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9715" data-sentence-id="9715" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphases added</span>.)</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9732" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9732" data-sentence-id="9732" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9732"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/1033737155" data-vids="1033737155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9732"><span class="ldml-cite">Section 8-41-102 of the WCA</span></a></span> provides:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_9773" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="9773" class="ldml-sentence">An employer who has complied with the provisions of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9773"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 40 to 47</span></a></span> of this title, including the provisions relating to insurance, shall not be subject to the provisions of <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9773"><span class="ldml-cite">section 8-41-101</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concerning the unavailability of certain defenses</span>]</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span></span> <i class="ldml-italics">nor shall such employer or the insurance carrier, if any, insuring the employer's liability under said <span class="ldml-entity">articles</span> be subject to any other liability for the death of or personal injury to any employee,</i> except as provided in said <span class="ldml-entity">articles</span>; <i class="ldml-italics">and all causes of action, actions at law, suits in equity, proceedings, and statutory and common law rights and remedies for and on account of such death of or personal injury to any such employee and accruing to any person are abolished</i> except as provided in said <span class="ldml-entity">articles</span>.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="10528" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10528" data-sentence-id="10528" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphases added</span>.)</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="10545" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="10545" data-sentence-id="10545" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10545"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> And <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10545"><span class="ldml-cite">section 8-41-104</span></a></span></span> provides:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10579" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="10579" class="ldml-sentence">An election under the provisions of <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10579"><span class="ldml-cite">section 8-40-302<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concerning employers' purchase of workers' compensation insurance</span>]</span></span> <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_10703" data-val="1290" data-vol="480" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d"></span> and in compliance with the provisions of <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10579"><span class="ldml-cite">articles 40 to 47</span></a></span> of this title, including the provisions for insurance, <i class="ldml-italics">shall be construed to be a surrender by the employer, such employer's insurance carrier, and the employee of their rights to any method, form, or amount of compensation or determination thereof or to any cause of action, action at law, suit in equity, or statutory or common-law right, remedy, or proceeding</i> for or on account of such personal injuries or death of such employee other than as provided in said <span class="ldml-entity">articles</span>, and shall be an acceptance of all the provisions of said <span class="ldml-entity">articles</span>, and shall bind the employee personally, and, for compensation for such employee's death, the employee's personal representatives, surviving spouse, and next of kin, as well as the employer, such employer's insurance carrier, and those conducting their business during bankruptcy or insolvency.</span></blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="11597" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="11597" data-sentence-id="11597" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11614" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11614" data-sentence-id="11615" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11615"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> The foregoing provisions of the WCA establish the long-held <span class="ldml-entity">proposition</span> that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he <span class="ldml-entity">Act</span> provides the <i class="ldml-italics">exclusive</i> remedy to a covered employee for injuries sustained while the employee is performing services arising in the course of his or her employment."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11614" data-sentence-id="11873" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895749542" data-vids="895749542" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11615"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">People v. Oliver</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2016 COA 180M</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11615"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 21</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895749542" data-vids="895749542" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">405 P.3d 1165, 1171</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893254624" data-vids="893254624" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_11994"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kandt v. Evans</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">645 P.2d 1300, 1302</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1982</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Recovery under <span class="ldml-entity">the Act</span> is meant to be exclusive and to preclude employee tort actions against an employer."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888413807" data-vids="888413807" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12168"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Roper v. Indus. Comm'n</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">93 Colo. 250</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">25 P.2d 725, 726</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1933</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"One of the fundamental aims in adopting <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span> was that of substituting for any and all previously existing remedies the special procedure supplied by <span class="ldml-entity">the act</span>."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="11614" data-sentence-id="12331" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12332" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12332" data-sentence-id="12333" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12333"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> Employers who comply with the requirements of the WCA are therefore immune from common law liability related to on-the-job injuries.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12332" data-sentence-id="12470" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887393692" data-vids="887393692" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12333"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">706 P.2d 1258, 1263-64</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12332" data-sentence-id="12541" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have interpreted the foregoing WCA exclusivity provisions to extend immunity from any common law liability arising out of a work-related injury to the injured worker's co-employees.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12332" data-sentence-id="12739" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889508801" data-vids="889508801" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_12813,sentence_12541"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kelly v. Mile Hi Single Ply, Inc.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">890 P.2d 1161, 1163</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that an employer who has complied with the WCA's insurance provisions, as well as an injured worker's co-employees, are immune from common-law liability for such injuries</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893254624" data-vids="893254624" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13018,sentence_12541"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kandt</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">645 P.2d at 1305</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that the WCA quid pro quo by which an employer gives up its normal defenses and assumes liability in exchange for the employee's giving up common-law verdicts extends as well to co-employees who are also involved in this compromise of rights</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_13308,sentence_12541"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 8-40-102<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">recognizing that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the workers' compensation system in Colorado is based on a mutual renunciation of common law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13474" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13474" data-sentence-id="13474" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13474"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> The question now before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> is whether the WCA's co-employee immunity rule bars Ryser from recovering UM/UIM benefits from his co-worker Babion's insurer, Shelter.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13640" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="13640" data-sentence-id="13640" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13640"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> Shelter contends, and the division below concluded, that Ryser was not entitled to such benefits, reasoning that, because the WCA's co-employee immunity rule barred Ryser from bringing an action against Forster <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., the effectively uninsured co-employee driver)</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was not <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect"</span> damages, as those phrases are used in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13640"><span class="ldml-cite">sections 10-4-609<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(a)</span> and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span></span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13640" data-sentence-id="14054" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13640"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Ryser</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 37-39</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13640" data-sentence-id="14071" class="ldml-sentence">Under this interpretation, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> require <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> to prove not only that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">she</span> suffered damages caused by the fault of the uninsured motorist, but also that his or her action against the uninsured motorist was not barred under substantive law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13640" data-sentence-id="14382" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14071"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 39</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14399" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="14399" data-sentence-id="14399" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14399"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span> Ryser, in contrast, contends that the division's conclusion was erroneous because, in his view, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> mean solely that the injured <span class="ldml-entity">party</span> can prove <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> that the uninsured driver was at fault and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> the extent of the damages caused by that driver.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14399" data-sentence-id="14708" class="ldml-sentence">Ryser so interprets the statutory language because, in his view, the insurer does not <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_14794" data-val="1291" data-vol="480" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d"></span> step into the shoes of the tortfeasor and therefore procedural defenses such as WCA immunity do not apply in determining whether <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span> has satisfied the requirements for recovering UM/UIM benefits.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14399" data-sentence-id="14998" class="ldml-sentence">Ryser thus asserts that because <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> has established both Forster's fault and the extent of his damages, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> is entitled to recover UM/UIM benefits under the Shelter policy and the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15191" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15191" data-sentence-id="15191" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15191"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> acknowledge the force of both Ryser's and Shelter's arguments regarding the proper interpretation of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15191" data-sentence-id="15364" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> need not resolve this dispute here, however, because even if Ryser's interpretation were correct and <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> could satisfy the facial requirements for recovering benefits under the Shelter policy and the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> still cannot prevail because allowing him to recover under the Shelter policy would directly conflict with the WCA's exclusivity and co-employee immunity principles.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15750" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="15750" data-sentence-id="15750" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15750"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> As noted above, the WCA's exclusivity provisions abolish any causes of action related to personal injuries like those at issue here, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/1033737155" data-vids="1033737155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15750"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 8-41-102</span></a></span>, and, upon participating in the workers' compensation system, all employees <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"surrender ... their rights to any method, form, or amount of compensation or determination thereof or to any cause of action, action at law, suit in equity, or statutory or common-law right, remedy, or proceeding for or on account of such personal injuries,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15750"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 8-41-104</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15750" data-sentence-id="16246" class="ldml-sentence">In addition, it has long been established that the immunity created by these provisions extends as well to an injured worker's co-employees.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15750" data-sentence-id="16387" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889508801" data-vids="889508801" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16246"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kelly</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">890 P.2d at 1165</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893254624" data-vids="893254624" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16246"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kandt</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">645 P.2d at 1305</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="16442" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16442" data-sentence-id="16442" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16442"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> In our view, the expansive wording of the WCA controls in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16442" data-sentence-id="16515" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/1033737155" data-vids="1033737155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16515"><span class="ldml-cite">Section 8-41-102</span></a></span> provides that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<i class="ldml-italics">all</i> causes of action, actions at law, suits in equity, proceedings, and statutory and common law rights and remedies for and on account of such ... personal injury to <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[an]</span> employee and accruing to any person are abolished except as provided in said <span class="ldml-entity">articles</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16442" data-sentence-id="16807" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="16442" data-sentence-id="16825" class="ldml-sentence">That <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> further provides that the immunity afforded the employer extends to the employer's insurance carrier.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16442" data-sentence-id="16940" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/1033737155" data-vids="1033737155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_16956,sentence_16825"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 8-41-102</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[N]</span>or shall such employer or <i class="ldml-italics">the insurance carrier,</i> if any, insuring the employer's liability under said <span class="ldml-entity">articles</span> be subject to any other liability for the death of or personal injury to any employee ...."</span></span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895637116" data-vids="895637116" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_17261,sentence_16825"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Savio v. Travelers Ins. Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">678 P.2d 549, 551-52</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1983</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"When an employer has complied with the provisions of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16825"><span class="ldml-cite">Workmen's Compensation Act</span></a></span>, neither the employer nor its insurance carrier are subject to liability for the death of or personal injury to any employee, except as provided in <span class="ldml-entity">the Act</span>, and all causes of actions, rights, and remedies for and on account of such death of or personal injury to any covered employee are abolished."</span></span>)</span>, <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-cert">aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887393692" data-vids="887393692" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16825"><span class="ldml-cite">706 P.2d 1258</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17722" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="17722" data-sentence-id="17722" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17722"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> And as set forth above, the same immunities extend to co-employees and thus, necessarily, their insurance carriers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17722" data-sentence-id="17842" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889508801" data-vids="889508801" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17722"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kelly</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">890 P.2d at 1165</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893254624" data-vids="893254624" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17722"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Kandt</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">645 P.2d at 1305</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895637116" data-vids="895637116" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17722"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Savio</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">678 P.2d at 551-52</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/1033737155" data-vids="1033737155" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17722"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 8-41-102</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17722" data-sentence-id="17939" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, to conclude otherwise would allow an end-run around the WCA's exclusivity and co-employee immunity principles, which <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"play<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> a pivotal role in workers' compensation."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="17722" data-sentence-id="18115" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887414510" data-vids="887414510" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17939"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Cont'l Divide Ins. Co. v. Dickinson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">179 P.3d 202, 206</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2007</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18188" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18188" data-sentence-id="18189" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18189"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> Accordingly, on <span class="ldml-entity">the facts before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that, regardless of the proper interpretation of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to collect,"</span> Ryser's claim against his co-worker Babion's insurance carrier, Shelter, is barred by the WCA's exclusivity provisions and the related co-employee immunity rule and therefore fails as a matter of law.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18556" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18556" data-sentence-id="18556" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18556"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Cases</span> like <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895182343" data-vids="895182343" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18556"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Borjas v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">33 P.3d 1265</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2001</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18556"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ashour</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2017 COA 67</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">410 P.3d 753</span></a></span></span></span>, on which Ryser relies, do not dictate a different result because <span class="ldml-entity">these cases</span> did not involve the interplay between the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> and the WCA's exclusivity and co-employee immunity principles that is at issue here.<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_18954" data-val="1292" data-vol="480" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d"></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18954" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="18954" data-sentence-id="18955" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18955"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895182343" data-vids="895182343" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18955"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Borjas</i></span></a></span> did not involve the WCA at all.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18954" data-sentence-id="18998" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, it turned, in large part, on the interplay between the policies underlying the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> and those animating the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18998"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado Governmental Immunity Act</span></a></span>, with the division concluding that allowing the injured <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span> to recover UM/UIM benefits there served the policies of both statutory regimes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18954" data-sentence-id="19305" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895182343" data-vids="895182343" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18998"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Borjas</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">33 P.3d at 1268-69</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19337" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="19337" data-sentence-id="19337" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19337"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19337"><span class="ldml-refname">Ashour</span></a></span>,</i> in turn, expressly distinguished <span class="ldml-entity">a case</span> in which an employee seeks recovery of UM/UIM benefits from his employer's policy, which would implicate WCA exclusivity and immunity, from one like that before the division, in which the employee sought to recover such benefits from his own policy.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19337" data-sentence-id="19639" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19639"><span class="ldml-refname">Ashour</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19639"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 51-52</span></a></span></span>, 71, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19639"><span class="ldml-cite">410 P.3d at 762, 765</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19337" data-sentence-id="19683" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19683"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Ashour</i></span></a></span> division deemed it <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"critical"</span> to its analysis that <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> there had sought benefits under his own insurance policy because, among other things, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"did not seek to recover additional damages from the immune <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> in <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the]</span> case —his employer and co-employee."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19337" data-sentence-id="19970" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19970"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19970"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 52</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19970"><span class="ldml-cite">410 P.3d at 762</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19337" data-sentence-id="20000" class="ldml-sentence">The division thus observed, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[A]</span>llowing <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the <span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span>]</span> to claim benefits from his own insurance carrier would not in any way affect the immunity provided to his employer and co-employee by <span class="ldml-entity">the Act</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19337" data-sentence-id="20200" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20200"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20200"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 71</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887412990" data-vids="887412990" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20200"><span class="ldml-cite">410 P.3d at 765</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19337" data-sentence-id="20230" class="ldml-sentence">Allowing Ryser to collect UM/UIM benefits here, in contrast, would directly implicate those immunities.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20333" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20333" data-sentence-id="20333" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20333"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> likewise are unpersuaded by Ryser's argument that our <span class="ldml-entity">decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894962532" data-vids="894962532" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20333"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. McMichael</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">906 P.2d 92</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span></span>, compels the conclusion that Ryser is entitled to collect UM/UIM benefits under the Shelter policy because, in his view, Babion stood in the position of a third-<span class="ldml-entity">party</span> to the tort at issue and thus her WCA immunity was not implicated.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20333" data-sentence-id="20707" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894962532" data-vids="894962532" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20707"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">McMichael</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">906 P.2d at 96-97</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> interpreted the phrase <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"for the protection of persons insured thereunder,"</span> as used in <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">10-4-609<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1994</span>)</span></a></span>, to require that insurers issuing automobile liability insurance provide UM/UIM coverage for all individuals covered under the liability provisions of the policy, unless the named insured refuses such coverage in writing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20333" data-sentence-id="21086" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> thus concluded that because <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> was struck by a car driven by an underinsured motorist while <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> was using, with permission, a vehicle covered by his employer's insurance, <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was entitled to recover UM/UIM benefits under his employer's policy.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20333" data-sentence-id="21353" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894962532" data-vids="894962532" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21086"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">McMichael</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">906 P.2d at 94, 104</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21384" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21384" data-sentence-id="21384" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21384"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> Because <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894962532" data-vids="894962532" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21384"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">McMichael</i></span></a></span> was injured by the negligence of an unrelated tortfeasor <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., a tortfeasor who was not a co-employee)</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> had no occasion to consider either the WCA, its exclusivity or co-employee immunity principles, or the interplay between the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> and the WCA.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21384" data-sentence-id="21684" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not agree that our discussion of the UM/UIM coverage issue in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894962532" data-vids="894962532" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21684"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">McMichael</i></span></a></span> is dispositive of the issues before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> here.</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><p data-paragraph-id="21819" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21819" data-sentence-id="21819" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21819"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span> Finally, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not persuaded by Ryser's argument that the WCA and its underlying policies are not implicated in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> and that the public policies underlying the UM/UIM <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> alone should guide our analysis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21819" data-sentence-id="22038" class="ldml-sentence">The General Assembly has declared that the WCA must be interpreted</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_22104" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="22104" class="ldml-sentence">so as to assure the quick and efficient delivery of disability and medical benefits to injured workers at a reasonable cost to employers, <i class="ldml-italics">without the necessity of any litigation</i> , recognizing that the workers' compensation system in Colorado is based on a mutual renunciation of common law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="22447" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="22447" data-sentence-id="22448" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 8-40-102<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22447" data-sentence-id="22480" class="ldml-sentence">As discussed above, the WCA's exclusivity provisions, and by extension the WCA's employer and co-employee immunity principles, play a pivotal role both in the workers' compensation system and in effectuating the legislative declaration articulating its purpose.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22447" data-sentence-id="22742" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887414510" data-vids="887414510" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22480"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Dickinson</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">179 P.3d at 206</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22447" data-sentence-id="22775" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are not at liberty to ignore these statutory provisions and <span class="ldml-entity">the legislature</span>'s express declaration of policy, as <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> perceive Ryser's position would require <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to do.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-id="heading_22942" data-ordinal_start="3" data-confidences="very_high" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-types="conclusion" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="3" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" id="heading_22942" data-specifier="III"><span data-paragraph-id="22942" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="22942" data-sentence-id="22942" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22942" data-sentence-id="22947" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="22957" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="22957" data-sentence-id="22957" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22957"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span> For the reasons set forth above, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that an injured employee is barred <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-id="pagenumber_23041" data-val="1293" data-vol="480" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-rep="P.3d"></span> by operation of the WCA's exclusivity and co-employee immunity principles from bringing a UM/UIM benefits action against a co-employee vehicle owner's insurer for damages stemming from a work-related accident caused by the negligent driving of another co-employee.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22957" data-sentence-id="23307" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that summary judgment was properly entered in Shelter's favor in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23407" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23407" data-sentence-id="23407" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23407"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore affirm the judgment of the division below, although our reasoning differs somewhat from that of the division.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="23533" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="23533" data-sentence-id="23533" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">MÁRQUEZ</span></span> does not participate.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="23570" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="23570" data-sentence-id="23571" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari to review the following issue:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_23637" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="23637" class="ldml-sentence">Whether the meaning of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"legally entitled to recover"</span> or <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"collect"</span> as used in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23637"><span class="ldml-cite">section 10-4-609</span></a></span>, C.R.S. <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2019</span>)</span>, requires the uninsured/underinsured motor vehicle <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"UM/UIM"</span>)</span> insurance benefits be available to <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> who is injured by an immune at-fault driver while riding in a co-worker's car.</span></blockquote></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>