Opinion ID: 373863
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: liability of maryland casualty

Text: 28 The parties have stipulated that the workmen's compensation insurance policy issued by Maryland Casualty to Eureka stated that it was limited to compensation claims arising under Virginia law. 42 The ALJ therefore decided that Eureka was an uninsured employer under the District of Columbia Act. Since Maryland Casualty had fully satisfied its obligations to Eureka and to Riley under its insurance contract with Eureka, he held that Maryland Casualty is not liable to Riley for any additional payments under District of Columbia law. 43 This holding was affirmed by the Board. 44 29 Petitioner Riley challenges the Board order absolving Maryland Casualty of liability under the District of Columbia Act. He argues that by operation of 33 U.S.C. § 935 (1976) 45 the Maryland Casualty policy may be construed as covering all workmen's compensation liability of Eureka, under the law of any jurisdiction. In this argument he is mistaken. Section 935, by its terms, applies only in cases where the employer is not a self-insurer   . 46 In this case Eureka knowingly neglected to procure insurance against liability under the laws of jurisdictions other than Virginia. 47 No law operates to give Eureka greater coverage than it was willing to pay for. With respect to District of Columbia liability, Eureka was a self-insurer. See Rex Investigative & Patrol Agency, Inc. v. Collura, 329 F.Supp. 696, 699-700 (E.D.N.Y.1971); Smith v. Continental Nat'l American Group, 321 F.Supp. 1354, 1355 (E.D.La.1971). 30 We find no reason to reverse the Board with regard to the liability of Maryland Casualty. 31