Uninsured Employers' Fund: Indemnification

Weidow v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [01/22/10] 2010 MTWCC 2 Where the uninsured employer was joined as a party to the action and participated in a department mediation and where the Court ordered the uninsured employer to be joined as a third-party respondent prior to trial, the statutory requirements of § 39-71-541(1), -(2)(a), MCA, have been met. Since the uninsured employer has not raised any arguments that he should not be ordered to indemnify the UEF, the Court will enter judgment ordering the uninsured employer to indemnify the UEF pursuant to § 39-71-541(2)(b), MCA.

Benton v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [06/03/09] 2009 MTWCC 18 Where the UEF sought leave to file a third-party petition against the alleged uninsured employers on the grounds that recently enacted legislation provides that the alleged uninsured employers should be parties to the case, and Petitioner argued that the legislation should not be applied retroactively, the Court granted the UEF’s motion, holding that, notwithstanding the express retroactivity provision in the legislation, due process requires that the alleged uninsured employers be allowed to participate in the action in some capacity.

Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [02/20/09] 2009 MTWCC 7 UEF’s motion to file a third-party petition against the alleged uninsured employers is denied where the UEF has apparently not followed the statutory procedure set forth in § 39-71-506, MCA.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/11/08] 2008 MTWCC 52 A prospective demand letter sent to an uninsured employer by a UEF claims adjuster does not satisfy the due process requirements of § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA, and therefore does not comport with the requirements of § 39-71-506, MCA. Alleged uninsured employers are entitled to due process as specifically mandated by § 39-71-506, MCA, including the departmental procedure described in § 39-71-2401(2)-(3), MCA.
Raymond v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [09/19/08] 2008 MTWCC 45 Until a departmental order is issued pursuant to § 39-71-2401(2), MCA, and appealed to this Court pursuant to § 39-71-2401(3), MCA, the due process requirements of § 39-71-506, MCA, have not been met as it pertains to a claim for reimbursement made by the UEF against an uninsured employer.
UEF and Cousins v. Poynor [05/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 25 An uninsured employer must indemnify the Uninsured Employers’ Fund for workers’ compensation benefits it pays to an injured employee of the employer. § 39-71-504(1)(b), MCA (1999).
UEF v. Gould [12/6/04] 2004 MTWCC 79 The Uninsured Employers' Fund is entitled to indemnification from an uninsured employer only if it was in fact liable to pay benefits to the claimant. Where it has paid benefits to a claimant who was not in fact injured in the course and scope of employment, the Uninsured Employers' Fund is not entitled to indemnification from the uninsured employer.
UEF v.Grant/Stoneman [4/23/04] 2004 MTWCC 38 Where, within the ninety days provided in section 39-71-520, MCA (1993-2003), an uninsured employer fails to appeal a determination of the Uninsured Employers' Fund finding that a claim is compensable, the uninsured employer is barred from thereafter litigating that issue in an action by the Uninsured Employers' Fund seeking indemnification from the employer.
UEF v.Grant/Stoneman [4/23/04] 2004 MTWCC 38 Where an employer disputes the decision of the Uninsured Employers' Fund accepting liability for a claim, the employer bears both the burden of producing evidence and the burden of persuasion with respect to the non-compensability of the claim. The Workers' Compensation Court decision in Garcia v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 1998 MTWCC 53 regarding burden of persuasion is overruled.
UEF v.Grant/Stoneman [4/23/04] 2004 MTWCC 38 The Uninsured Employers' Fund is entitled to indemnification from the uninsured employer where medical evidence establishes that the claimant is suffering from an occupational disease and in any event the uninsured employer failed to produce evidence to establish or persuade the Court that the claimant's condition was not work related.
Colmore v. UEF/Forgey [3/4/04] 2004 MTWCC 22 The Montana Uninsured Employers’ Fund is entitled to indemnification for benefits it pays on behalf of an uninsured employer. § 39-71-504, MCA (1997). (Note: WCC affirmed in part, and reversed in part, on other grounds, in Colmore, et al. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2005 MT 239.)
Greene v. UEF [4/9/03] 2003 MTWCC 27 The Uninsured Employers' Fund is entitled to reimbursement from the uninsured employer for all benefits reasonably paid or to be paid a claimant. § 39-71-504(1)(b), MCA (1999).
Johnson v. Montana Municipal Ins. Authority [6/11/98] 1998 MTWCC 50 The UEF requested that an allegedly uninsured employer be formally joined as a party to an action brought by a worker alleging injury. In effect, the UEF's request for joinder is a request that it be permitted to file a third-party petition for indemnification. Although the Court did not at the time of this action have a rule for third-party petitions, the WCC follows where appropriate the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. Applying the principles behind Mont.R.Civ.P. 14(a), the UEF will be permitted to join the employer as resolving issues with participation of the employer will reduce the possibility of multiple actions and potentially inconsistent adjudications. (Following this decision, ARM section 24.5.307A was adopted, which specifies that in any case involving entitlement to benefits from the uninsured employers' fund, the alleged uninsured employer shall be deemed a party to the action.)
Baxter v. UEF [9/20/00] 2000 MTWCC 65 UEF entitled to indemnification from uninsured employer.
UEF v. Helstowski [5/23/00] 2000 MTWCC 29 Where court resolved credibility conflict to find injury did occur in uninsured employer's presence, UEF entitled to indemnification for compensation and medical benefits it paid to injured worker.