老貓的回覆 (一)

但用了我的病假休假时间,我的美国同事让我直接告诉他们我损失了薪水,这可行吗?他们会向我雇主证实我损失的薪水吗?

根據 Ramsey v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.的判例 (這個案件在 Supreme Court of Delaware.)中的關鍵在於those lost earnings which are 'unavoidable' or 'inescapable.",以您的情況因為您所用的是公司福利的一部份 (有薪的假期與病假)
同時也如您所說的"我没扣薪水",所以對於您的要求,保險公司有法源的依據來拒絕賠償,除非您能offer evidence來証明這項說法,也就是說如果您的人事部門能夠證明這點,您才有可能獲得賠償,至於您同事的建議是游走在法律的邊緣,因為就狹義的觀點,如果您的主管在您沒有時際減少薪水的情況下,出來作證說您有lost wages,這一種保險詐欺的行為,所以老貓估計您的主管不會接受這種安排。
同時1988年Bondi v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.的案例中(Colorado Court of Appeals),(這個案件與您的情況非常相似)然而當事人為什麼沒有獲得應有的賠償,重點在於In the present case, plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof with regard to actual lost wages....Therefore, she was unable to show any actual lost wages, and summary judgment was granted properly.
所以除非您能取得非常確實的證據來證明您如果不休假,您一定會獲得更多的薪資,(這點在老貓來看,非常的難,因為就算你當時不因為受傷拿假,在正長的狀況下您日後也有可能拿假,所以休假的時數不能計算成"actual lost wages",如果您因為病假時數用盡,必須扣薪以爭取更多的時間繼續休養,這一部份的損失,您就有可能取得一定的賠償。


Ramsey v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co
判決主文的摘要如下中
Under § 2118, an insured who suffers a personal injury is entitled to recover "reasonable and necessary expenses incurred within 2 years from the date of the accident for: ... the net amount of lost earnings." In Casson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 455 A.2d 361, 366 (Del.Super.1982), the Superior Court concluded that, "the term 'reasonable' is deemed to refer to the amount of lost earnings, while 'necessary' must be interpreted to mean those lost earnings which are 'unavoidable' or 'inescapable." ' We adopt that formulation.


请您先登陆,再发跟帖!