MONTANA
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS |
Stokes v. Golden Triangle, Inc., 2015 MT 199, 380 Mont. 93, 353 P.3d 500 An insurance policy, like any other contract, must be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the parties. Under contract law, policies are construed strictly against the insurer and in favor of the insured. Therefore, where an insurer’s failure to expressly name the employer in the insurance policy was an inadvertent administrative error but the employer’s payroll was used to calculate the premiums, coverage existed for the employer’s employees and the employer was a covered insured under the workers’ compensation policy. |
Total
Mechanical Heating & Air Condition, et al. v. ERD/UEF,
2002 MT 55 After UEF satisfied it's burden of proving
absence of record of workers' compensation insurance coverage by either
employee "leasing company" or "client companies,"
the employee "leasing" company and "client companies"
failed to present "substantial credible evidence" that coverage
in fact existed. WCC was correct in concluding that the evidence which
persuaded DLI hearing officer that coverage existed did not constitute
substantial credible evidence of actual insurance and in affirming the
penalties originally assessed by the UEF. |
Total
Mechanical Heating & Air Condition, et al. v. ERD/UEF,
2002 MT 55 Under section 39-71-401, MCA, it is the responsibility
of the statutory employer, and no one else, to provide workers' compensation
insurance. Section 39-71-117(1)(a)-(c), MCA (1993), defining "employer,"
includes every reasonably imaginable private, public and voluntary entity
that we typically consider an employer, whereas section 39-71-117(3)(a)
and (b), MCA (1993), creates exceptions to the employer definition.
|
Dahl
v. UEF, 1999 MT 168 Where
section 39-71-401(1), MCA (1993), requires an employer to elect to be
bound by the provisions of compensation plan No. 1, 2, or 3, an employer
may not rely upon a workers' compensation policy purchased by a company
furnishing employees and providing bookkeeping services such as issuing
of payroll checks and paying employment taxes. If the workers in question
are in fact employees, and not temporary workers substituting for permanent
employees on leave or hired to meet an emergency or short term workload
(see §39-71-116(29), MCA (1993), then the employer is uninsured under
section 39-71-501, MCA (1993) if it does not itself carry workers' compensation
insurance. |
WORKERS'
COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS |
MP
Livestock Trust/Perry Polzing Trucking [02/04/05] 2005 MTWCC 6
A Montana business which uses employees furnished by a professional
employer organization (PEO) under a “professional employer arrangement,”
§ 39-8-102(8), MCA (1999-2001), is an “employer” for
workers’ compensation purposes even though the PEO is primarily
responsible for furnishing workers’ compensation insurance coverage.
§§ 39-8-207(4)(c) and 39-71-117(3), MCA (1999-2001). However,
a Montana business which uses employees furnished by a PEO under an
“employee leasing arrangement,” § 39-8-102(5), MCA
(1999-2001), is not an employer for workers’ compensation purposes.
§§ 39-8-207(3) and 39-71-117(3), MCA (1999-2001). |
Conoco,
Inc. v. Williams Insulation Co. [03/05/03] 2003 MTWCC 15 At
the time of the claimant's injury on February 23, 2000, section 39-71-402(5),
MCA, required any contractor engaged in insulating pipes to provide
Montana workers' compensation insurance for its employees working in
Montana. |
| ERD/UEF v. Total Mechanical Heating [11/17/00] 2000 MTWCC 71 Lack of contemporaneous insurance coverage not cured by retroactive policy secured at a later date. Employer in such case is uninsured and liable for a penalty. |
Dahl
v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [5/2/00] 2000 MTWCC 25 On remand
from the Supreme Court, which held that companies receiving workers
from temporary employment agencies must maintain their own WC coverage
and cannot rely on their temporary agency to provide coverage, the WCC
held that section 39-71-116(29), MCA (1993), which defines "temporary
worker," was not unconstitutionally vague. On its face, the statute
distinguishes between temporary and permanent employees and limits the
use of temporary employees to emergency situations or to fill in for
permanent employees on leave. This definition is comprehensible as applied
to employees at issue. |
Dahl,
d/b/a Big Sky Concrete v. UEF [5/12/98] 1998 MTWCC 39 Statutory
requirements are satisfied where a workers' compensation policy covered
the workers, even though the policy was purchased by an employment agency
and not the entity for whom the workers were performing work. [Note:
WCC reversed on this issue in Dahl
v. Uninsured Employers' Fund,
1999 MT 168.] |
Z
Works, Inc. v. Barnaby and UEF [3/3/98] 1998 MTWCC 19 Summary
judgment granted to UEF establishing liability of uninsured employer
where undisputed affidavit proves painter/bookkeeper had not been granted
an independent contractor exemption under section 39-71-120, MCA (1995).
While the requirement of an exemption may be a trap for employers unschooled
in the technicalities of the 1995 legislation, which added the exemption
requirement, the Court must apply the law as written. Even assuming
claimant told the employer not to purchase workers' compensation insurance,
the advice of a bookkeeper or accountant, or even an attorney, cannot
relieve the employer from its statutory obligation. |