Moreau v. Transportation Ins. Co. [08/26/15] 2015 MTWCC 17 The Court held that no risk of inconsistent obligations exists if an employer was not joined in a case in which the employer agreed to indemnify its insurer for benefits paid.  If a dispute over this indemnification arose, the Court would not have jurisdiction to resolve such a dispute.

Moreau v. Transportation Ins. Co. [08/26/15] 2015 MTWCC 17 An employer insured under Plan No. 2 does not have an interest in a workers’ compensation case because it is not and cannot be liable for the benefits sought. 

Moreau v. Transportation Ins. Co. [08/26/15] 2015 MTWCC 17 Persons whose interests are one step removed from the issue in the case are neither necessary nor indispensable parties under M.R.Civ.P. 19.  Therefore, an employer insured under Plan No. 2 is neither necessary nor indispensable even though the employer entered into an agreement to indemnify its insurer.  An insurer’s duty to pay benefits is nondelegable.

Wilson v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [07/22/09] 2009 MTWCC 22 Although newly-enacted legislation (HB 119) purports to join an uninsured employer in an action against the UEF, it does not specify in what capacity the uninsured employer is joined. The potential liabilities of the uninsured employer must be clearly defined. Section 2(c) of HB119 specified that the type of judgment which may be entered against an uninsured employer would require the uninsured employer to indemnify the department. This provision implies that the uninsured employer would be joined as a third-party respondent with the UEF as a third-party petitioner. Therefore, that is how the Court will join the uninsured employer.