IN THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION
COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2001 MTWCC 27
WCC No. 2001-0284
JANICE BUTTE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE ESTATE OF LaVONNE KENNEDY
Petitioner
vs.
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY
Respondent/Insurer
for
TOWN PUMP, INCORPORATED
Employer.
ORDER DISMISSING
PETITION
Case summary:
Estate of murder victim brought petition for death benefits, alleging
that the deceased was murdered by her husband in the course and scope
of her employment. The respondent insurer moved for an order directing
the estate to name a specific beneficiary who would be entitled to benefits
if the employment allegations were true.
Held:
The motion raises the issue of whether the estate can maintain this action
at all, therefore the Court will treat the motion as one to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. The estate is not a potential beneficiary, therefore
the petition must be dismissed.
Topics:
Benefits: Death
Benefits. The estate of the deceased worker is not a potential
beneficiary of death benefits under section 39-71-721 and therefore
has no standing to maintain an action for benefits under that section.
Procedure: Motion
to Dismiss. Whatever the caption of a motion filed in response
to a petition, where the motion challenges the standing of the petitioner
to recover benefits based on the face of the petition, the motion will
be treated as a motion to dismiss.
Procedure: Motion
to Dismiss. Where the petition affirmatively shows that the
petitioner is not entitled to benefits, it will be dismissed.
Procedure: Motion
to Dismiss. The estate of the deceased worker is not a potential
beneficiary of death benefits under section 39-71-721 and therefore
has no standing to maintain an action for benefits under that section.
Therefore, a petition brought on behalf of the estate for death benefits
must be dismissed.
¶1 The petition in this case
is brought by the personal representative of the estate of LaVonne Kennedy
(Estate). Kennedy was murdered at work by her husband and her estate seeks
death benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act. Respondent, Ace American
Insurance Company (ACE), moves for an order compelling the estate to designate
a beneficiary eligible for benefits under section 39-71-721, MCA, which
provides for death benefits.
Discussion
¶2 Section 39-71-721, MCA (1999),(1)
governs death benefits. It provides in relevant part:
39-71-721. Compensation
for injury causing death -- limitation.
(1) (a) If an injured employee
dies and the injury was the proximate cause of the death, the
beneficiary of the deceased is entitled to the same compensation
as though the death occurred immediately following the injury. A beneficiary's
eligibility for benefits commences after the date of death, and the
benefit level is established as set forth in subsection (2).
. . .
(2) To beneficiaries
as defined in 39-71-116(5)(a) through (5)(d), weekly compensation
benefits for an injury causing death are 66 2/3% of the decedent's wages.
The maximum weekly compensation benefit may not exceed the state's average
weekly wage at the time of injury. The minimum weekly compensation benefit
is 50% of the state's average weekly wage, but in no event may it exceed
the decedent's actual wages at the time of death.
(3) To beneficiaries
as defined in 39-71-116(5)(e) and (5)(f), weekly benefits must
be paid to the extent of the dependency at the time of the injury, subject
to a maximum of 66 2/3% of the decedent's wages. The maximum weekly
compensation may not exceed the state's average weekly wage at the time
of injury.
(4) If the decedent
leaves no beneficiary, a lump-sum payment of $3,000 must be paid to
the decedent's surviving parent or parents.
. . .
(6) In all cases,
benefits must be paid to beneficiaries.
. . .
The emphasis is the Court's.
¶3 As set forth in the section
quoted above, the beneficiaries eligible for death benefits are those
persons identified in section 39-71-116(5), MCA (1999). That section provides
in relevant part:
(5) "Beneficiary" means:
(a) a surviving spouse living
with or legally entitled to be supported by the deceased at the time
of injury;
(b) an unmarried child under
18 years of age;
(c) an unmarried child under
22 years of age who is a full-time student in an accredited school or
is enrolled in an accredited apprenticeship program;
(d) an invalid child over
18 years of age who is dependent, as defined in 26 U.S.C. 152, upon
the decedent for support at the time of injury;
(e) a parent who is dependent,
as defined in 26 U.S.C. 152, upon the decedent for support at the time
of the injury if a beneficiary, as defined in subsections (5)(a) through
(5)(d), does not exist; and
(f) a brother or sister
under 18 years of age if dependent, as defined in 26 U.S.C. 152, upon
the decedent for support at the time of the injury but only until the
age of 18 years and only when a beneficiary, as defined in subsections
(5)(a) through (5)(e), does not exist.
The estate of the deceased
worker is not a beneficiary. Thus, it is not entitled
to, and has no standing to pursue, death benefits.
¶4 While ACE's motion requests
that the estate designate the proper beneficiary, the estate has no standing
to do so. ACE's motion properly raises the issue of the estate's standing
to bring the current action. In effect it is a motion to dismiss the estate
as a party. The Court will treat the motion accordingly.
¶5 A motion to dismiss must
be granted where the petition on its face shows that the party bringing
the petition is not entitled to relief. "[W]hen a complaint alleges facts
and, assuming the facts are true, there still is no claim for relief stated
under any theory, a motion to dismiss must be granted." Duffy v.
Butte Teachers Union, No. 332, AFL-CIO, 168 Mont. 246, 253, 541 P.2d
1199, 1203 (1975). The estate of the decedent is not a beneficiary under
any possible interpretation of the statutes governing death benefits,
therefore it has no claim for relief.
ORDER
¶6 Accordingly, the petition
is dismissed. The dismissal does not preclude any beneficiaries
enumerated in the statutes from bringing their own petition.
DATED in Helena, Montana,
this 29th day of May, 2001.
(SEAL)
/s/ Mike
McCarter
JUDGE
c: Mr. Edward K. Duckworth
Mr. Leo S. Ward
Submitted: May 23, 2001
1. The murder
occurred on September 18, 1999. Thus, the 1999 version of the Workers'
Compensation Act applies. Buckman v. Montana Deaconess Hospital,
224 Mont. 318, 321, 730 P.2d 380, 382 (1986).
|