Appeals: Supersedes Bond

Oksendahl v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp. [07/31/07] 2007 MTWCC 35 Where the insurer provided the Court with a copy of its most recent Annual Statement as authenticated by the Montana State Auditor and Commissioner of Insurance, and the statement reflects a substantial positive balance, the Court was satisfied that adequate security existed for payment of the judgment. The Court waived the requirement that the insurer post a supersedeas bond.

Evans v. Liberty [07/20/07] 2007 MTWCC 32 Where the parties do not stipulate that a bond is not required, Respondent must show to the satisfaction of the Court that adequate security exists for payment of the judgment in order to waive the bond requirement. Respondent provided the Court with an authenticated copy of its annual statement reflecting a positive balance in excess of $200,000,000. The Court is thereby satisfied that adequate security exists for payment of the judgment and the bond requirement is therefore waived.

Sturchio v. Liberty [03/15/07] 2007 MTWCC 12 In a case in which the parties have not stipulated that no bond is required, in order to waive the bond requirement under ARM 24.5.346, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Court that adequate security exists for payment of the judgment. Only then may the Court waive the bond requirement. In the present case, Respondent has provided no proof that adequate security exists and therefore the Court is not satisfied and Respondent’s request to waive the supersedeas bond is denied.

ERD/UEF v. Total Mechanical [1/23/01] 2001 MTWCC 3 Supersedeas bond may be waived only where the opposing party consents or the appealing party provides satisfactory evidence that adequate security exists to pay the judgment. § 39-71-2910(2); Rule 7(b), Mont.R.App.P.; WCC Rule 24.5.346.

ERD/UEF v. Total Mechanical [1/23/01] 2001 MTWCC 3Even if lack of adequate funds to purchase a supersedeas bond were a ground for waiving the bond requirement, proof of inadequate funds must be shown by affidavit or other sworn evidence. An attorney's representations are inadequate.

Burglund v. Liberty Mut. NW Ins. Co. [06/05/95] 1995 MTWCC 25A Where parties both appealed judgment awarding claimant twenty percent permanent partial disability benefits, Respondent requests stay of execution pending appeal. Claimant opposes the stay but agrees to waive any requirement that Respondent post bond. Stay granted.

Ingebretson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. [01/12/95] 1994 MTWCC 113-A Although the Workers’ Compensation Court was sympathetic to claimant’s dire financial situation, and his desire for commencement of payment of benefits awarded in that Court’s decision, respondent self-insured employer has the right to appeal and statutory provisions authorize a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. Where appellant has demonstrated through affidavit that it has sufficient finances to pay the judgment, and has offered to make a cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond, and claimant may have difficulty re-paying benefits should the Supreme Court overturn this Court’s decision, the application for stay is granted on condition appellant post $20,000 cash deposit.

Ingebretson v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. [01/12/95] 1994 MTWCC 113-A Self-insured employer which is appealing decision of WCC awarding benefits to claimant was allowed to make a cash deposit in lieu of supersedeas bond where claimant had no objection and section 25-10-401, MCA (1993), permits such substitution.