Courts: Concurrent Jurisdiction: Competing Proceedings
MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS |
CNA Ins. Co. v. Dunn, 273 Mont. 295 (1995) (No. 95-170) Once the jurisdiction of a District Court was properly invoked under section 39-71-515, MCA (1993) in an uninsured employer case, that District Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all the integral elements of the claim, including whether or not the employer was insured. In addition, permitting separate litigation in the Workers’ Compensation Court on some of the same issues would be a terrible waste of judicial resources and the parties’ time and money. |
MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS |
CNA Ins. Co. v. Dunn [03/20/95] 1995 MTWCC 20 Where injured employee filed action in District Court based on information that no workers’ compensation coverage was in place, and employer later asserted coverage under a CNA policy, petition in Workers’ Compensation Court filed by CNA was dismissed at request of claimant. While the Workers’ Compensation Court does have jurisdiction to determine CNA’s liability to claimant, CNA is free to admit liability, making the real import of this Court’s rulings their impact on the District Court case. Under those circumstances, the insurance issues underlying this matter are better resolved in the pending District Court proceeding. Where injured employee filed action in District Court based on information that no workers’ compensation coverage was in place, and employer later asserted coverage under a CNA policy, petition in Workers’ Compensation Court filed by CNA was dismissed at request of claimant. While the Workers’ Compensation Court does have jurisdiction to determine CNA’s liability to claimant, CNA is free to admit liability, making the real import of this Court’s rulings their impact on the District Court case. Under those circumstances, the insurance issues underlying this matter are better resolved in the pending District Court proceeding. Note: this determination was affirmed in CNA Insurance Companies v. Dunn, et al., 273 Mont. 295 (1995) (No. 95-170), though the Supreme Court found the Workers’ Compenation Court did not have concurrent jurisdiction where the District Court’s jurisdiction was invoked prior to the filing of the Workers’ Compensation Court petition. |