No. 13621 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF .?,%OPITANA 

1978 

PETE V. VIGUE, Claimant, 

Claimant and Respondent, 

-vsM & M CONSTRUCTION CO., Employer, 

and 

ARGONAUT NORTHWEST INEULXANCE CO., 

Defendant and Appellant, 

and 

F1 & ?,I CONSTRUCTION CO. , Employer, 

and 

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, 

Defendant and Respondent, 

and 

NELSON LOGGING CO., Employer, 

and 

GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE CO., 

Defendant and Respondent. 

Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court 

Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Harris, Jackson & Murdo, Helena, llontana 

Robert ?I. Murd.o argued, Helena, Yontana 

For Respondents: 

Robb and Botsford, Missoula, Montana 

Norman Robb argued, Missoula, Montana 

Thomas Keegan argued, Helena, !lantana 

Dexter Delaney, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted: January 20, 1978 

Decided: FEB 1- 1978 

Filed: X&r A .#@ 
Mr. 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 in 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 in the 

state of Montana with its corporate headquarters in Missoula, 

Montana. M & M is engaged in road construction and has operated 

exclusively in Idaho since 1972 or 1973. M & M is insured under 

the workers' compensation laws of Idaho by appellant Argonaut 

and in Montana by respondent State Compensation Insurance Fund 

(State Fund). Claimant, a resident of Lolo, Montana, was hired 

by M & M to operate a "Cory" shovel on a road construction project 

in Idaho. 

M & M subcontracted part of the operation to Nelson Logging 

Company, and Nelson Logging agreed to supply the equipment for the 

initial clearing work. This equipment included a Cory shovel 

located in Lolo, Montana. Claimant was told to accompany the 

shovel from Lolo to Idaho and drive a "flag car". On July 21, 

claimant met with Ray Richardson, a truck driver employed by 

M & M, to load the shovel onto a lowboy transport trailer for 

the trip to Idaho. Claimant was attempting to adjust the position of the shovel on the trailer when the shovel overturned. 

Claimant was injured in the accident. 
Claimant has filed claims for compensation in Idaho with 

appellant Argonaut and in 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 all three insurers: State Fund;: 

Argonaut; and Glacier General Assurance Company (the carrier 

for Nelson Logging). The Workers' Compensation Court held it 

lacked jurisdiction over the claim, 

Basic to 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 is controlling in this matter." 

In the reciprocity agreement, effective February 1, 1968, the 

Industrial Accident Board of Idaho agreed to: 

"* * * assume and exercise extraterritorial 

jurisdiction over compensation claims of any 

Idaho workman injured in 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 is crucial because 

the Workers' Compensation Act of Montana does not apply if the 

provisions of section 92-614(3), R.C.M. 1947, are met: 

"If a worker from another state and his employer 

from another state are temporarily engaged in work 

within this state, this act shall not apply to them: 

"(a) if the employer and employee are bound by the 

pcovisions of the Workers' Compensation Law or similar 

law of such other state which applies to them while 

they are in the state of Montana, and 

"(b) if the Workers' Compensation Act of this state 

is recognized and given effect as the exclusive remedy 

for workers employed in this state who are injured while 

temporarily employed in such other state.'' (Emphasis 

added. ) 

The reciprocity agreement clearly states how it is to be 

implemented: 
"For the purpose of implementing the terms of 

this agreement, the parties agree upon the following 

procedures: 

"The Idaho IAB will upon request and on behalf of 

an Idaho employer issue a certificate of extraterritorial 

coverage to the Montana IAB and the latter upon request 

and on behalf of a Montana employer will issue its certificate of extraterritorial coverage to the Idaho IAB. 

Such certificates may be cancelled or revoked at the 

discretion of the issuing agency. Due notice of issuance, 

modification and cancellation of any such certificate 

shall be given to the employer and to his insurance 

carrier, if any." 

In the instant case no certificate was ever obtained or 

introduced into evidence to show that the Idaho Industrial 

Accident Board would exercise extraterritorial coverage while 

claimant was in Montana. The issuance of such a certificate 

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. In the 

absence of the issuance of a certificate of extraterritorial 

coverage, it is 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 in Montana. 

The finding of the Workers' Compensation Court that the reciprocity 

agreement is controlling is erroneous. 

The judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court is reversed 

and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accord with 

this opinion. 

This appeal did not include a challenge to the finding of 

the workers' Compensation Court that M & M, and not Nelson 

Logging, was claimant's employer. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as to Nelson Logging and its insurer, Glacier General 

Assurance Company. 

,P-Wy 

~htief ~ustice. 
We Concur: