Opinion ID: 1971391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Policy Excludes Coverage

Text: 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 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. 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 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.