Title: VIGUE v M M CONSTRUCTION CO

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 1 3 6 2 1 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF .?,%OPITANA 1 9 7 8 PETE V. VIGUE, C l a i m a n t , C l a i m a n t and R e s p o n d e n t , -vs- M & M CONSTRUCTION C O . , E m p l o y e r , and ARGONAUT NORTHWEST INEULXANCE CO., D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t , and F1 & ?,I CONSTRUCTION CO. , E m p l o y e r , and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t , and NELSON LOGGING CO., E m p l o y e r , and GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE CO., D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . A p p e a l f r o m : W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t H o n o r a b l e W i l l i a m E. H u n t , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : H a r r i s , Jackson & M u r d o , H e l e n a , llontana R o b e r t ?I. Murd.o argued, H e l e n a , Y o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t s : R o b b and B o t s f o r d , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a N o r m a n R o b b argued, M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a T h o m a s K e e g a n argued, H e l e n a , !lantana D e x t e r D e l a n e y , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d : January 2 0 , 1 9 7 8 D e c i d e d : FEB 1- 1978 Filed: X&r A .#@ M r . Justice John Conway Harrison..delivered the Opinion of the Court : Defendant Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company appeals from the findings and conclusions of the Workers' Compensation Court, entered September 2, 1976. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the claim i n question and the claim should properly come under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Industrial Accident Board. It is not disputed that claimant Pete V. Vigue was employed by M & M Construction Company, a corporation registered i n the s t a t e of Montana with its corporate headquarters i n Missoula, Montana. M & M is engaged i n road construction and has operated exclusively i n Idaho since 1972 or 1973. M & M is insured under the workers' compensation laws of Idaho by appellant Argonaut and i n Montana by respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund). Claimant, a resident of Lolo, Montana, was hired by M & M t o operate a "Cory" shovel on a road construction project i n Idaho. M & M subcontracted part of the operation to Nelson Logging Company, and Nelson Logging agreed t o supply the equipment for the i n i t i a l clearing work. This equipment included a Cory shovel located i n Lolo, Montana. Claimant was told t o accompany the shovel from Lolo t o Idaho and drive a "flag car". O n July 21, claimant met with Ray Richardson, a truck driver employed by M & M, t o load the shovel onto a lowboy transport t r a i l e r for the t r i p t o Idaho. Claimant was attempting t o adjust the posi- tion of the shovel on the t r a i l e r when the shovel overturned. Claimant was injured i n the accident. Claimant has f i l e d claims for compensation i n Idaho with appellant Argonaut and i n Montana with respondent State Fund. State Fund investigated the Montana claim and requested a hearing before the Workers' Compensation Court. A hearing was held involving claimant and a l l three insurers: State Fund;: Argonaut; and Glacier General Assurance Company (the c a r r i e r for Nelson Logging). The Workers' Compensation Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the claim, Basic t o the Court's decision is its finding: "That, as a matter of law, the valid reciprocity agreement between the State of Montana and the State of Idaho i s controlling i n t h i s matter." I n the reciprocity agreement, effective February 1, 1968, the Industrial Accident Board of Idaho agreed to: "* * * assume and exercise e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l jurisdiction over compensation claims of any Idaho workman injured i n the State of Montana. * * *I' The court found that claimant was an:"Idaho workman1' within the terms of the agreement. The effect of the reciprocity agreement i s crucial because the Workers' Compensation Act of Montana does not apply i f the provisions of section 92-614(3), R.C.M. 1947, are met: "If a worker from another s t a t e and h i s employer from another s t a t e a r e temporarily engaged in work within t h i s s t a t e , t h i s a c t s h a l l not apply t o them: "(a) i f the employer and employee a r e bound by the pcovisions of the Workers' Compensation Law o r similar law of such other s t a t e which applies t o them while they a r e i n the s t a t e of Montana, and "(b) i f the Workers' Compensation Act of t h i s s t a t e is recognized and given effect a s the exclusive remedy f o r workers employed i n t h i s s t a t e who a r e injured while temporarily employed i n such other state.'' (Emphasis added. ) The reciprocity agreement clearly s t a t e s how it is t o be implemented: "For the purpose of implementing the terms of t h i s agreement, the parties agree upon the following procedures: "The Idaho IAB w i l l upon request and on behalf of an Idaho employer issue a c e r t i f i c a t e of e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l coverage to the Montana IAB and the l a t t e r upon request and on behalf of a Montana employer w i l l issue its c e r t i - f i c a t e of e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l coverage to the Idaho IAB. Such certificates may be cancelled o r revoked a t the discretion of the issuing agency. Due notice of issuance, modification and cancellation of any such c e r t i f i c a t e s h a l l be given to the employer and t o h i s insurance c a r r i e r , i f any." I n the instant case no c e r t i f i c a t e was ever obtained or introduced into evidence t o show that the Idaho Industrial Accident Board would exercise e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l coverage while claimant was i n Montana. The issuance of such a c e r t i f i c a t e is expressly authorized by statute, and is prima facie evidence of the application of the Workers' Compensation Law of the certifying state. Section 92-614(4), R.C.M. 1947. I n the absence of the issuance of a c e r t i f i c a t e of e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l coverage, it i s clear the reciprocity agreement was never properly implemented, and there was no showing that claimant was covered by the workers' compensation law of Idaho while i n Montana. The finding of the Workers' Compensation Court that the reciprocity agreement is controlling i s erroneous. The judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court i s reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings i n accord with t h i s opinion. This appeal did not include a challenge t o the finding of the workers' Compensation Court that M & M, and not Nelson Logging, was claimant's employer. Therefore, t h i s appeal is dis- missed a s t o Nelson Logging and its insurer, Glacier General Assurance Company. , P - W y ~htief ~ u s t i c e . We Concur: