The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-11-01
Attorney General Renders Important
Opinion Workmen's Compensation Law

T., response to a series of questions
,b,nitted by the state insurance man
agar with reference to the construc-
ion TO be placed upon the provisions
of the workman's compensation act,
Attorney General Walters has render
I'D the following opinion:
Mfr. c. O. Broxon, state insurance
,,anager-Dear Sir: This office is in
receipt of your communication of re-
cant date requesting our opinion rela-
two TO several questions which have
arisen under the recently enacted law
Known as the workmen's compensa-
ton act.
Your first question is
can the industrial accident board
accept any other class of security un-
der subdivision (b) of section IS of the
act than surety bond or guaranty
contract?
The answer to this question, so far
as it is determined by the wording of
the section itself, depends upon the
construction placed on the word
may" If the word may means
must as it frequently does in legal
parlance, then the employer is limited
to the two classes of security specific
ally named If, on the other hand the
expression under consideration was
inserted in the act for the purpose of
satisfactory security, including the two
classes named, then, of course the
class and kind of security which an
employer may deposit and the board,
may accept, rests entirely in the dis
cretion of the board.
Must Make Deposit.
Reference to correlated sections of
the act strongly inclines us to the be
lief that it was the legislative intent
to limit the employer to the two
classes of security specifically named
Sections SO. 20. II. 70, and 11O-J of the
act, all of which deal with the ques-
ton of security for the payment of
compensation, mention but three
classes of security, namely; Insurance
in the state fund. guaranty contracts
and surety bonds. The wording of
these sections clearly indicates that
the classes of security specifically
mentioned were intended to be exclu-
sive. This being true, employers who
do not insure in the state fund must
deposit either surety bond or a guar
anty contract, and the board has no
authority to accept any other kind of
security.
Your second question in substance
is:
Can the bond or contract furnished
under the provisions of subdivision
CD of section IS be limited in time or
to an amount less than the total liza
bility of the employer under the act?
Blanket Bond.
Section So of the act provides that
every guaranty contract or surety
bond shall cover the entire liability of
the employer to his employees who are
covered by the bond or contract. 1t
will be difficult indeed to draft a form
OF bond strictly complying with the
provisions of this section, unless the
bond is absolutely unlimited in
amount. This will be particularly true
in the case of large employers of Ia
Dor 1t will be practically impossible
to determine the maximum liability of
the owner of factory, mill or mine
employing hundreds of men with
pay roll and scale of wages constant
ly changing. This being true, the
board would be almost under the ne
cessity of requiring from such an en-
ployer bond or contract which did
not fix a maximum liability. How
ever, we do not feel that section SO of
the act should be construed as deny
ing to the board any discretion in this
matter, or authority to determine the
amount. of the bond or contract which
should be required of each employer of
labor An employer having but one or
two persons on his pay roll, should not
be required to deposit bond unlimit-
ed in amount when obviously there is
#