Employers: Liability

Olson v. Daughenbaugh, 2001 MT 284. Where the injured employee of an uninsured employer has already received his full entitlement to compensation pursuant to settlement negotiated with the UEF and the uninsured employer, section 39-71-515, MCA does not provide an independent cause of action allowing duplicative recovery. The section is one part of a comprehensive statutory scheme designed to ensure an injured worker receives compensation. While an employee may pursue various statutory remedies in an uninsured employer case concurrently, he is not entitled to duplicative recovery, but is bound by the first venue to reach decision.
Nelson v. CENEX, Inc., 2008 MT 108, 342 Mont. 371, 181 P.3d 619 Where an employee had two distinct, separate periods of employment with the same employer and was only exposed to asbestos during the first period of employment, his subsequent employment with that employer bears no relevance to his exposure and the disease at issue.

Moreau v. Transportation Ins. Co. [08/26/15] 2015 MTWCC 17 Where an employer funded an entity which in turn paid medical bills of Libby residents affected by asbestos, regardless of their employment status, neither the employer nor the entity can be said to have paid “benefits” within the meaning of the WCA.  Even though the employer also agreed to indemnify its workers’ compensation insurer for benefits paid, any amount it pays to the insurer will be to fulfill a contractual agreement and will not be the payment of workers’ compensation benefits.