Independent Contractor: Elements: Tools and Equipment

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Mathews v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 2003 MT 116 Where a worker for a framing contractor did not have his own separate place of employment, did not pay for any materials or supplies, and realized no profit other than hourly play from the framing contractor, the circumstances suggested employee status.

American Agrijusters Co. v. Montana Department of Labor and Industry, 1999 MT 241, 296 Mont. 176 The furnishing of equipment test does not cut in both directions with equal force. An employment relationship almost invariably exists where the employer furnishes valuable equipment. Nevertheless, proof showing a worker furnished his or her own equipment is not necessarily fatal to a finding of employee status. According to Larson: "Since the furnishing even of heavy and valuable equipment by workers is frequently inadequate to establish independent contractorship, a fortiori very little weight is given to the furnishing by the worker of such small items as trowels, hammers and other hand tools, axes, brushes, knives, snips, and paperhanging equipment.

Walling v. Hardy Construction, 247 Mont. 441, 807 P.2d 1335 (1991) Independent contractor status was indicated where concrete sub-contractor supplied his own equipment, including expensive cement finishing machines. Fact that general contractor's Bobcat and forklift were occasionally used in concrete work did not negate independent contractor status, particularly where these machines were operated by general contractor's employees.

Walling v. Hardy Construction, 247 Mont. 441, 807 P.2d 1335 (1991) Quoting Larson that: "When it is the employer who furnishes the equipment, the inference of right of control is a matter of common sense and business. The owner of a $10,000 truck who entrusts it to a driver is naturally going to dictate the details such as speed, maintenance, and the like, in order to protect his investment. Moreover, since he has capital tied up in this piece of equipment, he will also want to ensure that it is kept as productive as possible."

Schrock v. Evans Transfer and Storage, 225 Mont. 348, 732 P.2d 848 (1987) Where trucking company furnished truck to worker, and required worker to maintain the equipment properly and to account for the equipment as often as required, employment relationship was strongly suggested.

Schrock v. Evans Transfer and Storage, 225 Mont. 348, 732 P.2d 848 (1987) When the employer furnishes valuable equipment, an employment relationship is strongly suggested. This notion is related closely to the right to control, which typically exists if the worker uses valuable equipment of the employer.

Solheim v. Tom Davis Ranch, 208 Mont. 265, 677 P.2d 1034 (1984) Although evidence that an employer furnishes valuable equipment typically indicates an employment relationship, the test does not cut in both directions with equal force. Proof that a worker furnished his own equipment is not necessarily fatal to a finding of employment status.

Solheim v. Tom Davis Ranch, 208 Mont. 265, 677 P.2d 1034 (1984) Fact that alleged employer made expensive loading equipment available to trucker unloading hay did not defeat independent contractor status, where other evidence showed trucker had independently established business and chose how to perform the work.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS

Weidow v. UEF [01/17/09] 2009 MTWCC 4 Petitioner brought his own screw gun to the work site, but all the other tools he used were owned by the property owner. The furnishing of tools is indicative of control.

Bowler v. Independent Contractor Central Unit [08/14/08] 2008 MTWCC 42 Where the worker used his own hand tools while performing work for a flooring business owner, and where the owner provided the power tools and equipment that the worker used, including air guns, a work truck, and a rented paint sprayer for at least one of the owner’s painting jobs, the evidence weighs in favor of an employer-employee relationship.

Korman Marketing Group v. ICCU [05/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 24 The fact that a contractor may rent or lease, or be provided with the premises on which he or she conducts business, is not per sè inconsistent with being an independent contractor.

Colmore v. UEF/Forgey [3/4/04] 2004 MTWCC 22 Where the hiring party provides the most important piece of equipment, the providing of that equipment supports a finding of an employment rather than an independent contractor relationship. (Note: WCC affirmed in part, and reversed in part, on other grounds in Colmore, et al. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2005 MT 239.)