Globe Grain Milling Co. v. Industrial Commission, 57 Utah 192, 193 P. 642, distinguished.Anderson v. Industrial Commission, 108 Utah 52, 157 P.2d 253.Combined Metals Reduction Co. v. Industrial Commission, 74 Utah 247, 254, 278 P. 1019, 1022.

Johansen v. Cudahy Packing Co., 107 Utah 114, 152 P.2d 98.Anderson v. Industrial Commission, 108 Utah 52, 157 P.2d 253. See 42 C.J., Motor Vehicles, sec. 757; 5 Am. Jur. 678. Automobile crossing street at a point other than a street intersection, note, 57 A.L.R. 1100. Motorist's duty at private driveway, note, 24 A.L.R. 946; see, also, 5 Am. Jur. 670.

Brough v. Ute Stampede Ass'n, 105 Utah 446, 142 P. 670.Johanson v. Cudahy Packing Co., 107 Utah 114, 152 P.2d 98; Anderson v. Industrial Commission and Milne, 108 Utah 52, 157 P.2d 253.Beaver County v. Home Indemnity Co., 88 Utah 1, 52 P.2d 435.

In its order, the Industrial Commission stated it would not be "appropriate" for Bevans to keep both the no-fault insurance proceeds and a full workers' compensation award, thereby obtaining more benefits than another injured employee could obtain through workers' compensation alone. Presumably it would have drawn the same conclusion from Anderson v. Industrial Comm'n, 108 Utah 52, 157 P.2d 253 (1945), in which the Utah Supreme Court refused to grant a credit to the employer for medical expense benefits paid by an accident policy paid for by the injured employee. Regardless of the fairness or appropriateness of Bevans's retention of the no-fault benefits in addition to workers' compensation benefits, the Industrial Commission remains a statutorily-created agency, not a court of equity.

If a claimant chooses to pay the premium for personal insurance, the compensation carrier should not be the beneficiary of claimant's personal policy in the event of injury. Id. (citing Anderson v. Industrial Comm'n, 157 P.2d 253 (Utah 1945); Fireman's Fund Indem. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 226 Cal.App.2d 676, 38 Cal.Rptr. 336 (Cal.Dist.Ct.App. 1964)). Kaisers argue that, as in Meyers, private insurance was purchased and this private contract of insurance should not be allowed to relieve the employer or the employer's insurer of its obligation to provide workers' compensation benefits.

In support of his position that he should be awarded the amount of his medical bills despite the aspect of double recovery, the plaintiff cites the following cases: Shelby Mfg. Co. v. Harris, 112 Ind. App. 627, 44 N.E.2d 315 (1942); Byant v. New Orleans Public Service Inc., 406 So.2d 767 (La.App. 1981); Bowen v. Magic Mart of Cornith, 441 So.2d 548 (Miss. 1983); Homan v. American Can Co., 535 S.W.2d 574 (Mo. 1976); Wiedower v. ACF Industries, Inc., 657 S.W.2d 71 (Mo.App. 1983); Humphrey v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 100 Pa. Commw. 33, 514 A.2d 246 (1986); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Ratcliff, 537 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Civ.App. 1976); Anderson v. Industrial Commission, 108 Utah 52, 157 P.2d 253 (1945); but see Johnson Transportation Co. v. Dunkle, 19 Del. 2322, 541 A.2d 551 (1988); Shepard v. Midland Foods, Inc., 219 Mont. 124, 710 P.2d 1355 (1985); Workmen's Appeal Board v. Olivetti Corporation of America, 26 Pa. Commw. 464, 364 A.2d 735 (1976). We note, however, the limited weight that we attribute to cases from other jurisdictions. "Cases from other jurisdictions . . . are of limited assistance, because the courts are construing the terms of their own Acts which generally differ materially from our Act."

14 because this expense was not paid by the claimant but instead was paid by his personal insurance carrier. We would hold that since accident insurance is a matter of private contract, it would not affect the rights of injured employees to recover under the compensation law. 101 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 1045, p. 628 and SDCL 62-3-18. If a claimant chooses to pay the premium for personal insurance, the compensation carrier should not be the beneficiary of claimant's personal policy in the event of injury. Anderson v. Industrial Commission, 108 Utah 52, 157 P.2d 253; Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 226 Cal.App.2d 676, 38 Cal.Rptr. 336.Id. 216 N.W.2d at 821.

14 because this expense was not paid by the claimant but instead was paid by his personal insurance carrier. We would hold that since accident insurance is a matter of private contract, it would not affect the rights of injured employees to recover under the compensation law. 101 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 1045, p. 628 and SDCL 62-3-18. If a claimant chooses to pay the premium for personal insurance, the compensation carrier should not be the beneficiary of claimant's personal policy in the event of injury. Anderson v. Industrial Commission, 108 Utah 52, 157 P.2d 253; Fireman's Fund Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 226 Cal.App.2d 676, 38 Cal.Rptr. 336. Appellant also raises issues as to whether the Commissioner made the proper findings under SDC 64.0401 for additional medical expense over and above the initial $1,700 provided.

It is a preferred claim: see In re Mower's Estate, 93 Utah 390, 73 P.2d 967. See Anderson v. Industrial Comm., 108 Utah 52, 157 P.2d 253. We do not see any significance in the fact, much emphasized by the defendant, that the insurance company paid the bills directly rather than to pay it to the plaintiff and have him act as a conduit for delivery of the money to the doctor and hospital.

D. The liability of Box and U.S.F. G. is for the full amount provided for in the Compensation Act, and an employer-carrier liable under the Act cannot take credit for money received by the claimant from outside sources. City of Evanston v. Industrial Comm., 10 N.E.2d 644; Shelby Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Harris, 44 N.E.2d 315; City of Alexandria v. McClary (Va.), 188 S.E. 158; Bartels v. Ford Motor Co., supra; State v. District Court, 158 N.W. 791, Ann. Cases 1918B, 635; McKenzie v. Standard Motor Car Co. (La.), 15 So.2d 115; Thompson v. Leach McClain (La.), 11 So.2d 109; Wallace v. American Cyanamid Co., 26 A.2d 704; Mavroulias v. Mugiona, 39 A.2d 263; Anderson v. Industrial Comm. (Utah), 157 P.2d 253. II. Box being a subcontractor and having secured payment of compensation to his employee, Collins, there is no liability whatsoever therefor on Memphis or American Casualty.