Title: LaFOREST v RONALD LeLAND E K WI

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13284 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 JOSEPH E. LAFOREST, Plaintiff and Appellant, RONALD LELAND AND COMPANY and E. K. WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District Honorable Arnold H. Olsen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gregory J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Greenwood and Petaja, Helena, Montana Nicholas C. Jacques argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: January 11, 1977 ~ecided: JAN 2 0 1977 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a c t i o n f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from an alleged f a i l u r e of defendants t o procure worker's compensation coverage f o r t h e operation of p l a i n t i f f ' s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n Butte, S i l v e r Bow County, Montana. From an order of t h e d i s t r i c t court, S i l v e r Bow County, t r a n s f e r r i n g venue t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , L e w i s and Clark County, Montana, p l a i n t i f f appeals. The complaint a l l e g e s t h a t i n February, 1972, defendant Roland LeLand and Company entered i n t o an o r a l c o n t r a c t with p l a i n t i f f t o procure worker's compensation coverage f o r t h e operation of p l a i n t i f f ' s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n Butte, S i l v e r Bow County, Montana. The complaint a l l e g e s both breach of c o n t r a c t and negligence by defendant i n f a i l i n g t o procure t h e coverage. P l a i n t i f f was subsequently injured i n an i n d u s t r i a l accident. The complaint seeks damages i n t h e amount of workmen's compensa- t i o n b e n e f i t s t o which p l a i n t i f f would have been e n t i t l e d had coverage been procured. The place of performance w a s not expressed i n t h e o r a l contract. A d i s p u t e e x i s t s concerning whether t h e place of contracting w a s i n Butte, S i l v e r Bow County, o r Helena, L e w i s and Clark County. P l a i n t i f f r e s i d e s and operates h i s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n Butte, S i l v e r Bow County. The p r i n c i p a l place of business of defendant Roland LeLand and Company i s i n Helena, L e w i s and Clark County, and its president Roland LeLand r e s i d e s there. W e hold t h a t t h e place of performance of t h e c o n t r a c t c o n t r o l s venue i n t h i s case. Section 93-2904, R.C.M. 1947. Ab- s e n t t h e underlying c o n t r a c t , t h e r e i s no negligence, no claim f o r r e l i e f , and no lawsuit. The gravamen of t h e complaint is f a i l - u r e t o procure t h e coverage as agreed. By necessary implication, t h e coverage was t o be procured by defendant a t i t s place of business in Lewis and Clark County. The place of performance exception applies to contracts where the place of performance is indicated by necessary implication. McGregor v. Svare, 151 Mont. 520, 445 P.2d 571 and cases cited therein. Judgment affirmed. Justice We concuj?: Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in this case.