Independent Contractor: Independent Business

Hallquist v. Independent Contractor Central Unit [06/10/10] 2010 MTWCC 16 The Court determined that an alleged employee who had previously run an auto repair business in a nearby city, had his own clientele, and personally owned a substantial set of automotive tools was engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.
Hallquist v. Independent Contractor Central Unit [06/10/10] 2010 MTWCC 16 The Court determined that an alleged employee who ran a mobile diesel repair business prior to coming to work at the auto repair shop where he was allegedly an employee, had a large, established clientele which he brought with him to the shop, and apparently continued to do diesel repair after he left the shop, was engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.
Bowler v. Independent Contractor Central Unit [08/14/08] 2008 MTWCC 42 Where a flooring business owner produced only two painting contracts that the worker entered into, both of which preceded the time period at issue, the Court finds there is virtually no evidence to support a finding that the worker was engaged in an independent trade, occupation, profession, or business while working for the owner.
Kinney v. UEF [03/05/07] 2007 MTWCC 10 As an artist who sells his work directly to individuals and by placing pieces on consignment, Petitioner is clearly engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business, thereby meeting the requirements of § 39-71-120(1)(b), MCA.
UEF and Cousins v. Poynor [05/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 25 A roofer who does not advertise his services, does not bid on roofing jobs, and does not enter into roofing contracts, but rather works exclusively for a contractor for wages is an employee not an independent contractor.
UEF and Cousins v. Poynor [05/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 25 A worker is not an independent contractor unless engaged in an independent business. § 39-71-120(1)(b), MCA (1997-1999); Lundberg v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Co., Inc., 268 Mont. 499, 887 P.2d 156 (1994).

Korman Marketing Group v. ICCU [05/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 24 The fact that a contractor is not engaged in an actual business at the time he solicits a contract for his or her services does not disqualify the contractor from being deemed an independent contractor where he or she has been engaged in the same business previously and shows a clear intention to recommence that business as an independent enterprise.
Korman Marketing Group v. ICCU [05/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 24 The fact that a contractor provides his or her services serially, a single client at a time, rather than to multiple clients simultaneously, does not disqualify the contractor from being deemed an independent contractor.

Korman Marketing Group v. ICCU [05/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 24 Where an individual has previously been in the same line of business, negotiates a contract for the same sort of services and does so at arm’s length, intends to go back into his prior business, thereafter purchases the necessary equipment to operate the business, hires and pays employees, and is responsible for the actual services, including safety, the independent business requirement under part B of the AB test is met.

Colmore v. UEF/Forgey [3/4/04] 2004 MTWCC 22 Where a claimant hires on to do work for another, his expressed desire to go into business for himself is not sufficient to establish that he is engaged in an independent business for purposes of the B part of the Independent Contractor test where his expression of intent has gone no further, he has not purchased equipment essential to establishing a new business, he has no other jobs, and obtained the job at issue by indicating he was unemployed and needed work. (Note: WCC affirmed in part, and reversed in part, on other grounds in Colmore, et al. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2005 MT 239.)

RAM Montana, Inc. v. ICCU/UEF [2/20/04] 2004 MTWCC 13 Where only work performed by alleged independent contractors was performed for a single employer and the alleged independent contractors were not engaged in business ventures independent of their work for the employer, the workers failed the "B" part of the independent contractor test and were not in fact independent contractors.
Thoreson v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [6/28/00] 2000 MTWCC 40 Where worker was not engaged in independently established business and had not been engaged in the line of work for which he was hired by this employer, he was not an independent contractor. Affirmed in nonciteable decision 2002 MT 6.