Penalties: Uninsured Employers AND Uninsured Employers Fund

Williams Insulation Co. Inc. v. Department of Labor and Industry, Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2003 MT 72 Where Wyoming workers' compensation coverage did not apply to employees working primarily in Montana, UEF properly assessed penalty against employer for failing to carry workers' compensation insurance.
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.
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.

Dostal v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [11/15/12] 2012 MTWCC 42 Since the UEF was included in the definition of “insurer” in § 39-71-116(10), MCA (1991), it is therefore treated as such for purposes of § 39-71-2907, MCA, and can be ordered to pay a penalty if this Court determines it unreasonably delays or refuses to pay benefits.

MP Livestock Trust/Perry Polzing Trucking [02/04/05] 2005 MTWCC 6 A Montana business utilizing leased employees through a “professional employer arrangement” as defined in section 39-8-102(8), MCA (1999-2001), is liable for a penalty under section 39-71-504(1), MCA (1999-2001), where the professional employer organization (PEO) fails to maintain insurance for the employees and the Montana employer similarly fails to do so. §§ 39-8-207(3) and 39-71-117(3), MCA (1999-2001). However, a Montana business utilizing leased employees through an “employee leasing arrangement” as defined in section 39-8-102(5), MCA (1999-2001), is not liable for a penalty since it is not an employer for workers’ compensation purposes. §§ 39-71-117(3) and 39-8-207(3), MCA (1999-2001).
MMN Cattle Co., LLC v. DLI & UEF [01/18/05] 2005 MTWCC 4 The appeal of an employer from a Department of Labor and Industry assessment of a civil penalty on account of the employer's failure to have workers' compensation insurance during the penalty period is dismissed where the employer does not contend that there was a policy of insurance in effect during the penalty period but rather asserts that its policy had been improperly and negligently cancelled. The Supreme Court's decision in Auto Parts of Bozeman v. Employment Relations Div., 2001 MT 72, 305 Mont. 40, 23 P.3d 193, precludes consideration of the contention.

Pekus v. UEF [4/25/03] 2003 MTWCC 33, rev'd in part, 2012 MTWCC 42. The UEF is not an insurer under section 39-71-2907, MCA (2001), and is not subject to a penalty.

ERD/UEF v. Total Mechanical Heating [11/17/00] 2000 MTWCC 70 Respondent employers failed to comply with the Order which permitted them to submit employee records so the UEF could recompute penalties; therefore, the UEF is relieved its agreement to recompute the penalties. The order allowing recomputation was a matter of grace since the penalties were upheld by the Court.

ERD/UEF v. Total Mechanical Heating [6/26/00] 2000 MTWCC 39 DOL Hearing Officer's determination that companies "leasing" employees were insured by putative policies arranged by "lessor" entity reversed where record does not contain substantial evidence of existence of policies nor that lessor retained control over employment as required by section 39-71-117 if "lessee" were to rely on "lessor's" WC policy. WCC Decision affirmed in Total Mechanical Heating & Air Condition, et al. v. ERD/UEF , 2002 MT 55
Dahl v. UEF [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.
Synthetic Technologies Corp. and Weatherguard Corp. v. ERD, UEF [9/1/99] 1999 MTWCC 55 WCC affirmed DOL decision that corporations employing "shareholders" were uninsured and liable for penalties. Exemption under section 39-71-401, MCA (1995) for 20% shareholders did not apply because "shareholders" did not in fact own stock where they could be divested of ownership by others without compensation and one person had obtained "irrevocable proxy" for all shares.
Zimmerman, Inoco Incorporated, Big Z Trucking, and Zimmerman Trading Company v. UEF and State Fund [10/23/97] 1997 MTWCC 60 To the extent the Department of Labor's order assessed a penalty against the individual owner of a corporate uninsured employer, the hearing officer's decision affirming the order is reversed. The hearing officer's decision did not find reasons to ignore the protections against individual liability afforded through incorporation under Montana law, but merely appeared to find liability against the individual as well as corporate entities.