The Supreme Court rendered the 106-Tai-Shang-2031 Civil Decision of June 29, 2018 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that since labor insurance payment received by workers due to occupational accidents and the right to claim damages from wrongdoers due to an act of tort are not derived from the same reasons, there is no issue of profit and loss offset.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellant filed a complaint asserting that he had been an employee of a company located in the Nankang Software Park (hereinafter, the “Park at Issue”) managed by the Appellee, i.e., the Industrial Development Bureau, Ministry of Economic Affairs. The Appellant was injured when he fell into a pond due to the Appellee’s negligence for not setting up sufficient lighting equipment and safety signs by the pond in the Park at Issue (hereinafter, the “Accident at Issue”). After the Appellant’s damages claim to the Appellee was rejected, damages were sought in accordance with the State Compensation Law. Although the original trial court believed that the Appellant was eligible for damages from the Appellee in accordance with the State Compensation Law, still the Appellant had received an occupational accident compensation from the Bureau of Labor Insurance. The original trial court held that since the injury covered by such compensation had been compensated, such injury should be excluded, and that the Appellant’s above-mentioned claim as subsequently asserted was groundless and should be rejected.
In this regard, this Decision pointed out that a labor insurance system does not seek to reduce the liabilities of a wrongdoer who is not an employer, and that the insurance payment received by a worker as a result of any occupational accident and damages claim to a wrongdoer due to an act of tort are derived from different reasons. The latter damages claim is not vitiated by the receipt of the above insurance payment, and there is no issue of profit and loss offset.
It was further pointed out in this Decision that the Appellant was not an employee of the Appellee, and the occupational accident compensation received by the Appellant was not an insurance payment from the labor occupational accidents insurance obtained by the Appellee for the Appellant by paying the insurance premiums. Therefore, there were no repetitive claims since the national compensation claimed by the Appellant from the Appellee is different from the occupational accident compensation which the Appellant may claim and receive. The original trial court was certainly questionable for making a determination unfavorable to the Appellant on the ground that the damages claimed by the Appellant should be offset by the occupational accident compensation he had received. This Decision thus reversed and remanded the original decision for the above-mentioned reasons.