Title: Smigelski v. Potomac Insurance

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Andrew A. Smigelski d/b/a Columbia Roofing & Home Improvement v. Potomac
Insurance Company of Illinois, No. 52, September Term, 2007 
HEADNOTE: WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - Where an insurance policy excludes
coverage outside Virginia for activities for which the employer would require separate
coverage, and the injured employee is a regular employee of a statutory employer, the
injury is not covered.  Furthermore, where the law of another state precludes workers’
compensation coverage in that state as a result of the injured worker’s status as an illegal
alien, our analysis in Kacur v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. does not extend coverage to a
claim filed in Maryland.
 
In the Circuit Court for Montgomery County 
No. 256440
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
No. 52
September Term, 2007 
____________________________________
ANDREW A. SMIGELSKI D/B/A COLUMBIA
ROOFING & HOME IMPROVEMENT
v.
POTOMAC INSURANCE COMPANY OF
ILLINOIS
___________________________________
Bell, C.J.
Raker
        
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, Specially
Assigned)
Cathell, Dale R. (Retired, Specially
Assigned),
   JJ.
____________________________________
Opinion by Greene, J.
____________________________________
  Filed: January 10, 2008
1It is undisputed by the parties that Alejandro Garcia was an illegal alien at the
time of his injury.  Both parties, in their briefs, use the term “illegal alien,” and as such,
we use that term throughout this opinion.
This case arises from a workers’ compensation claim filed by Alejandro Garcia, a
Virginia resident, who was employed by Andrew Smigelski, owner of a Virginia company,
and was injured while performing work in Maryland.  The Maryland Workers’ Compensation
Commission awarded Alejandro Garcia benefits, but noted that as a result of his status as an
illegal alien,1 Smigelski’s workers’ compensation insurance policy would not cover the
injury.  On petition for judicial review, the Circuit Court for Montgomery County granted
summary judgment to the insurance provider, Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois, on the
issue of coverage.  The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment,
and we granted Smigelski’s petition for certiorari.
We shall hold that the workers’ compensation insurance policy, by its own terms,
excluded coverage in states other than Virginia for activities requiring the employer to
procure workers’ compensation insurance in those states.  Pursuant to Maryland law,
Smigelski, as a statutory employer, was required to procure workers’ compensation insurance
for his employees in Maryland.  We shall hold that the jury’s finding that Alejandro Garcia
was regularly employed in Maryland precludes a determination that he was a casual
employee.  Accordingly, Smigelski was required to procure workers’ compensation coverage
in Maryland.  Therefore, under the terms of the policy, Garcia was not covered for this
accident.  Finally, we shall hold that, because Alejandro Garcia was an illegal alien at the
2Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-820 provides: 
Every employer subject to the provisions of this chapter who
has been unable to obtain a workers' compensation insurance
policy shall have the right to apply to the State Corporation
Commission to have his risk assigned to an insurance carrier
licensed to write and writing workers' compensation insurance
in this Commonwealth. The insurance carrier, whether stock,
mutual, reciprocal or interinsurer or other type or form of
organization, to whom any such risk is assigned shall issue a
policy of workers' compensation insurance which will enable
such employer to meet the requirements of this chapter.
3In his application for coverage, Smigelski requested coverage only in Virginia,
and certified that the company’s employees did not travel outside of Virginia.
2
time of his injury, he could not properly file a claim in Virginia.  There is no basis, consistent
with our prior case law, to extend coverage in this case.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Andrew Smigelski, owner of Columbia Roofing & Home Improvements, a Virginia
company, purchased a workers’ compensation insurance policy (“the policy”) from Potomac
Insurance Company of Illinois (“Potomac”), with a policy period from February 28, 1998 to
February 28, 1999.  The policy, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-820 (1950, 2007 Repl.
Vol.),2 provides coverage for employers who are unable to secure a policy in the voluntary
market.  The policy terms are predetermined by law and regulations governing Virginia
assigned risk policies.  Specifically, the policy provides coverage for injuries to workers
arising out of and in the course of employment in Virginia,3 and limited coverage outside of
Virginia according to the Residual Market Limited Other States Insurance Endorsement (“the
4The only state listed is Virginia.
3
Endorsement”).  The Endorsement provides as follows:
1. We will pay promptly when due the benefits required of you
by the workers compensation law of any state not listed in Item
3.A.4 of the Information Page if all the following conditions are
met:
a. The employee claiming benefits was either hired under a
contract of employment made in a state listed in Item 3.A. of the
Information Page or was, at the time of injury, principally
employed in a state listed in Item 3.A. of the Information Page;
and
b. The employee claiming benefits is not claiming benefits in a
state where, at the time of the injury, (i) you have other workers
compensation insurance coverage, or (ii) you were, by virtue of
the nature of your operations in that state, required by that
state’s law to have obtained separate workers compensation
insurance coverage, or (iii) you are an authorized self-insurer or
participant in a self-insured group plan; and 
c. The duration of the work being performed by the employee
claiming benefits in the state for which the employee is claiming
benefits is temporary.
The construction project underway at the time of Alejandro Garcia’s accident arose
when Philip Kalnitzky, doing business as Victory Homes, contracted with Andrew Smigelski
to install a roof for a new home being constructed in Maryland.  Smigelski subcontracted the
work to Ruben Garcia.  Ruben Garcia assigned his nephew, Alejandro Garcia, to a crew of
approximately five men who were to work on the project. 
The job was expected to take four days to complete, and on February 25, 1999, after
the job had been in progress for approximately three and one half days, Alejandro Garcia was
4
injured when he slipped and fell from the roof.  At the time of the accident, which occurred
in Maryland, Alejandro Garcia was an illegal alien whose residence was in Virginia.
Alejandro Garcia filed a claim for benefits with the Maryland Workers’ Compensation
Commission.  The Commission issued an order, finding, inter alia, that Smigelski was the
statutory employer, and that the Potomac policy did not cover Smigelski against the claim
because Alejandro Garcia was an illegal alien at the time of the accident.  The Commission
awarded benefits to Alejandro Garcia.
Smigelski filed a timely Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, and both Smigelski and Potomac filed motions for summary judgment.
Potomac argued in its motion that, because Maryland law required Smigelski to procure
separate coverage, the Endorsement specifically excluded coverage for this type of work.
In Smigelski’s cross-motion for summary judgment, he argued that Alejandro Garcia was
performing temporary or incidental work in Maryland; therefore, Smigelski argued that the
policy covered Alejandro Garcia’s injury, pursuant to the terms of the Endorsement.  
The trial court agreed with the Commission, granting Potomac’s motion on the issue
of insurance coverage, and denying Smigelski’s cross-motion for summary judgment.  The
case proceeded to a jury trial on the four remaining issues relating to Alejandro Garcia’s
claim: jurisdiction, willful misconduct, average weekly wage and temporary total disability.
The jury returned the following special verdict:
VERDICT: 
5In his brief, appellant frames the question as follows:
When a workers’ compensation insurance policy expressly
provides for certain coverage in states in addition to the primary
state in which the policy was issued, is the scope of coverage in
those other states restricted to the benefits, if any, that would
have been payable by the insurer had the injured worker’s claim
been filed in the primary state?
In its brief, appellee presents the following question:
Whether the Court of Special Appeals correctly affirmed the
Circuit Court’s award [of] summary judgment to Potomac, given
the undisputed facts that 1) Alejandro Garcia was, at the time of
his injury, an illegal alien, 2) that at the time of his injury illegal
aliens were not entitled to any benefits under the Virginia
Workers Compensation Law, 3) that the Potomac policy was an
assigned risk policy issued under the Virginia Workers
Compensation Insurance Plan that provided coverage for
5
1) WAS ALEJANDRO GARCIA REGULARLY EMPLOYED
IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND?  YES.  
2) WAS ALEJANDRO GARCIA’S INJURY CAUSED BY
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT ON HIS PART?  NO.  
3) FOR WHAT PERIOD OF TIME WAS ALEJANDRO
GARCIA TEMPORARILY AND TOTALLY DISABLED?
FROM FEBRUARY 26, 1999 THROUGH AUGUST 11, 1999.
4) WHAT WAS ALEJANDRO GARCIA’S AVERAGE
WEEKLY WAGE? $415.00.
Smigelski appealed the court’s grant of summary judgment to the Court of Special Appeals,
but neither party appealed the judgment entered on the jury verdict.  In an unreported
opinion, the intermediate appellate court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court.
Smigelski then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court, which we granted.5
benefits awarded under the Virginia Workers Compensation
Law, and 4) that at the time of his injury Alejandro Garcia was
regularly employed in Maryland and thus was a “covered
employee” for whom [ ] Smigelski, as statutory employer, was
obligated to provide workers compensation insurance coverage
under Maryland law.
6
Smigelski v. Potomac Ins., 400 Md. 647, 929 A.2d 890 (2007).  
DISCUSSION
In reviewing a court’s grant of summary judgment, we determine first whether there
is any genuine dispute of material fact, and, if not, then whether the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.  Educ. Testing Serv. v. Hildebrant, 399 Md. 128, 139, 923
A.2d 34, 40 (2007).  The relevant inquiry in this case, therefore, is whether the Circuit Court
erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Potomac on the issue of coverage.
Furthermore, “[i]f the trial court does not state its reasons for granting the motion, we will
affirm the judgment so long as the record ‘discloses it was correct in so doing.’” Phillips v.
Allstate Indem. Co., 156 Md. App. 729, 740, 848 A.2d 681, 687 (2004) (quoting Casey Dev.
Corp. v. Montgomery County, 212 Md. 138, 145, 129 A.2d 63, 67 (1957)).  Although the
Circuit Court judge did not specify his reasons for granting summary judgment, nonetheless,
we shall affirm because he was legally correct.
I. Policy Excludes Coverage
By its own terms, the Endorsement excludes coverage for activities where, “by virtue
of the nature of [Smigelski’s] operations in that state, [Smigelski was] required by that state’s
law to have obtained separate workers compensation insurance coverage.”  Maryland
6See Md. Code (1991, 1999 Repl. Vol.), §9-508(a) of the Labor & Employment
Article, which provides: 
In general. - A principal contractor is liable to pay to a
covered employee or the dependents of the covered employee
any compensation that the principal contractor would have
been liable to pay had the covered employee been employed
directly by the principal contractor if:
(1) the principal contractor undertakes to perform any work
that is part of the business, occupation, or trade of the
principal contractor;
(2) the principal contractor contracts with a subcontractor for
the execution by or under the subcontractor of all or part of
the work undertaken by the principal contractor; and
(3) the covered employee is employed in the execution of that
work.
7A “covered employee” is defined, pursuant to §9-202 of the Labor & Employment
Article, as follows:
(a) In general. - Except as otherwise provided, an individual,
including a minor, is a covered employee while in the service
of an employer under an express or implied contract of
apprenticeship or hire.
(b) Unlawful employment - Minors. - A minor may be a
covered employee under this section even if the minor is
7
workers’ compensation law requires employers to “secure compensation for covered
employees of the employer.”  Md. Code (1991, 1999 Repl. Vol.), §9-402(a) of the Labor &
Employment Article.  There is no genuine dispute that Smigelski is the correct statutory
employer,6 and Smigelski concedes as much.  As a statutory employer, Smigelski is required
to secure insurance for covered employees.7  §9-402(a) of the Labor & Employment Article.
employed unlawfully.
Furthermore, this Court has held that, in Maryland, “an undocumented worker injured in
the course of his employment is a ‘covered employee’ under §9-202 and, therefore, is
eligible to receive worker’s compensation benefits.”  Design Kitchen & Baths v. Lagos,
388 Md. 718, 740, 882 A.2d 817, 830 (2005).
8“A casual employee is not a covered employee.” §9-205 of the Labor &
Employment Article.
8
Petitioner contends that Alejandro Garcia qualifies as a “casual employee,” and
therefore is not considered a covered employee.8  §9-205 of the Labor & Employment
Article.  Although the term is not defined by statute, “this Court has consistently held that .
. . application of the term, ‘casual employee,’ should be made according to the particular
facts presented in each case.”  Wood v. Abell, 268 Md. 214, 221, 300 A.2d 665, 669 (1973).
This Court has noted that “‘where the employment for one job cannot be characterized as
permanent or periodically regular, but occurs by chance, or with the intention and
understanding on the part of both employer and employee that it shall not be continuous, it
is casual.’”  Lupton v. McDonald, 241 Md. 446, 452, 217 A.2d 262, 265 (1966) (quoting
Consumers' Mut. Oil Producing Co. v. Indus. Comm'n., 289 Ill. 423, 124 N. E. 608 (1919)).
Some of the factors we use to determine whether an employee is a casual employee are: the
nature of the work, the duration of the employment, and the nature of the contract of
employment.  Wood, 268 Md. at 222, 300 A.2d at 669 (quoting Moore v. Clarke, 171 Md.
39, 53, 187 A. 887, 893 (1936)).  We use these factors to determine whether an employment
arrangement is casual, and the question “must be determined with principal reference to the
9
scope and purpose of the hiring rather than with sole regard to the duration and regularity of
the service.”  State Accident Fund v. Jacobs, 134 Md. 133, 135, 106 A. 255, 255 (1919).
In this case, the jury determined that Alejandro Garcia was regularly employed in
Maryland.  The jury’s finding on this matter is final and conclusive.  Neither party has made
an issue in this appeal of the jury’s special verdict, and we see no reason to disturb that
verdict on appeal.  Because the jury found that Alejandro Garcia was regularly employed in
Maryland, we cannot say that he was a casual employee.  As such, Smigelski as a statutory
employer was required to procure coverage for Alejandro Garcia in Maryland.  Because
Smigelski was required to obtain coverage for Alejandro Garcia, pursuant to Maryland law,
the Endorsement excludes coverage, by its own terms, for Alejandro Garcia’s work in
Maryland.
II. Kacur Does Not Provide an Alternative Basis for Coverage
Petitioner relies on Kacur v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 253 Md. 500, 254 A.2d 156
(1969), for the proposition that, even though the policy does not provide coverage for injuries
outside Virginia, workers’ compensation coverage is extended to other states where a proper
workers’ compensation claim could be filed.  The facts in Kacur, however, are
distinguishable from the facts in this case, and therefore our holding in Kacur does not apply.
In Kacur, an employee was injured in Maryland while in the course of his
employment.  Kacur, 253 Md. at 503, 254 A.2d at 157.  He was, at the time, employed by a
tire recapping and sales business located in Pennsylvania.  Id. at 501, 254 A.2d at 156.
9Virginia law now includes aliens and minors within the definition of employees. 
Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-101 (1950, 2007 Repl. Vol.).
10
Kacur’s workers’ compensation insurance policy expressly limited its coverage to claims
under Pennsylvania law; however, Kacur’s employee filed his claim in Maryland.  Id. at 5-3-
04, 254 A.2d at 158.  This Court noted that there was no doubt that, had the injured employee
filed in Pennsylvania, the insurance carrier would have been obligated to honor the claim.
Id. at 507, 254 A.2d at 160.  Based on public policy concerns, we extended the policy’s
coverage, noting that the employee’s decision to file his claim in a particular state, where
jurisdiction is proper, should not limit his employer’s insurance carrier’s contractual
obligation to pay benefits.  See id. at 509-10, 254 A.2d at 161.
This reasoning does not apply to the facts of this case because, under Virginia law in
effect at the time of his injury, Alejandro Garcia was not considered an employee eligible for
benefits because of his status as an illegal alien.  At the time of Alejandro Garcia’s injury,
Virginia law did not include illegal aliens, who are unable to work legally because of lack
of documentation, among the class of employees eligible for workers’ compensation
benefits.9  Granados v. Windson Dev. Corp., 257 Va. 103, 108-09, 509 S.E.2d 290, 293
(1999).  Therefore, if Alejandro Garcia had filed his claim in Virginia, his claim would have
been denied.  In Kacur, this Court reasoned that an insurance carrier’s obligation to pay
benefits should not be dependent on the claimant’s choice of forum, where both states have
proper jurisdiction.  Kacur, 253 Md. at 509-10, 254 A.2d at 161.  Thus, since Alejandro
Garcia was inelligible for compensation benefits under Virginia law, our reasoning in Kacur
11
is inapplicable.
In Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 110 Md. App. 45, 675
A.2d 1059 (1996), the Court of Special Appeals faced a similar challenge.  In Harleysville,
a Virginia corporation obtained a workers’ compensation insurance policy, assigned pursuant
to the Virginia Assigned Risk Plan.  Harleysville, 110 Md. App. at 48, 675 A.2d at 1061.
The employer in that case specifically declined coverage for work outside of Virginia.  Id.
As such, the court concluded that the employee could not have filed his claim in Virginia.
The intermediate appellate court noted that 
“[b]ecause a Virginia forum was not available, the claimant was
not provided with a choice of forums in which to bring his
claim.  Without such a choice, the rationale behind the Kacur
decision does not exist, and accordingly, the concept of holding
an insurer liable for benefits in a jurisdiction not covered in the
insurance contract cannot be justified using Kacur’s reasoning.”
Harleysville, 110 Md. App. at 57-58, 675 A.2d at 1065-66.  In the case at bar, as in
Harleysville, there is no alternate forum available to Alejandro Garcia, because his status as
an illegal alien at the time of his injury disqualified him for coverage under Virginia’s
workers’ compensation law.  We, therefore, concur with the rationale of the intermediate
appellate court in Harleysville.
CONCLUSION
The policy at issue in this case, by its own terms, excludes coverage for activities
outside Virginia requiring separate workers’ compensation insurance.  Because the jury in
this case found that Alejandro Garcia was regularly employed in Maryland, we cannot say
12
that he was a casual employee.  Alejandro Garcia is not a casual employee, and Smigelski
is a statutory employer; therefore, Smigelski was required to procure workers’ compensation
insurance in Maryland.  Because Smigelski was required to obtain separate workers’
compensation insurance in Maryland, the terms of the policy issued by Potomac exclude
coverage for Alejandro Garcia’s work in Maryland.  
Further, our analysis in Kacur does not provide an alternate basis for coverage.  In
Kacur, we noted that, where an injured employee may properly file in one of several
jurisdictions, an insurance provider may not decline coverage merely because of the
employee’s choice of forum.  Alejandro Garcia’s status as an illegal alien precluded him
from filing a successful claim for workers’ compensation in Virginia.  Therefore, our
reasoning in Kacur does not extend coverage for Alejandro Garcia’s accident in Maryland.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
OF SPECIAL APPEALS IS
AFFIRMED.  PETITIONER TO
PAY THE COSTS IN THIS
COURT AND IN THE COURT
OF SPECIAL APPEALS.