39-71-515, MCA


[1993] 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.

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.

[1993] Daenzer v. State Fund/Curtis Bartell [1/29/98] 1998 MTWCC 4 As the logger claimant's employer, petitioner was required to maintain workers' compensation insurance, §39-71-401, MCA (1993), and in failing to do so is personally liable for benefits, §39-71-515(4), MCA (1993). As insurer for the logging company with which petitioner had contracted, State Fund was secondarily liable under section 39-71-405, MCA (1993), but is entitled to indemnification from petitioner.