Opinion ID: 2350840
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Municipality Can Be A Project Owner.

Text: Alaska law requires that project owners must pay workers' compensation to injured workers if the workers' employer is a contractor that has failed to secure these payments. [9] Nelson argues that the Municipality cannot be a project owner as defined by AS 23.30.045(f)(2) because, as a political subdivision of the State, it is covered by a different subsection of the statute, AS 23.30.045(d). He also argues that the Municipality is not a person for purposes of the workers' compensation act and concludes from this that the Municipality cannot be a project owner. Nelson contends that the Municipality should be classified as a contract-awarding entity under subsection.045(d) rather than a project owner under subsections .045(a) and .045(f); he asserts that, as a result, the exclusive remedy provision of the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act does not shield the Municipality because AS 23.30.055 only protects those who are liable under AS 23.30.045(a), not those who are liable under AS 23.30.045(d). The Municipality responds that: (1) Nelson waived the argument that the Municipality is a person because of his service of process on the Municipality; (2) as a matter of statutory construction, the Municipality is a person for purposes of the workers' compensation act; and (3) the legislative history demonstrates that the State and its political subdivisions can be project owners. Nelson replies that accepting the Municipality's arguments would impose[] plainly redundant obligations on political subdivisions. Alaska Statute 23.30.045(a) provides: An employer is liable for and shall secure the payment to employees of the compensation payable under AS 23.30.041, 23.30.050, 23.30.095, 23.30.145, and 23.30.180-23.30.215. If the employer is a subcontractor and fails to secure the payment of compensation to its employees, the contractor is liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to employees of the subcontractor. If the employer is a contractor and fails to secure the payment of compensation to its employees or the employees of a subcontractor, the project owner is liable for and shall secure the payment of the compensation to employees of the contractor and employees of the subcontractor, as applicable. [ [10] ] Alaska Statute 23.30.045(f)(2) defines project owner as a person who, in the course of the person's business, engages the services of a contractor and who enjoys the beneficial use of the work. Person is not separately defined for purposes of the workers' compensation act, but employer is defined as the state or its political subdivision or a person employing one or more persons in connection with a business or industry coming within the scope of this chapter, and carried on in this state. [11] And AS 01.10.060(a)(8) generally provides that person includes a corporation, company, partnership, firm, association, organization, business trust, or society, as well as a natural person. [12] When includes is used in a statute, it must be construed as though followed by the phrase `but not limited to.' [13] Finally, AS 23.30.045(d) provides: A contract may not be awarded by the state or a home rule or other political subdivision of the state unless the person to whom the contract is to be awarded has submitted to the contracting agency proof, furnished by the insurance carrier, of current coverage by workers' compensation insurance. . . . The person to whom the contract is awarded shall keep the workers' compensation insurance policy in effect during the life of the contract with the state or political subdivision. If the state or the political subdivision . . . fails to obtain proof of coverage . . . or to protect itself under (e) of this section, and an employee of the contractor is injured during the term of the contract, the state or the political subdivision is liable for workers' compensation to the employee if the employee is unable to recover from the employer because of the employer's lack of financial assets. The state or the political subdivision is not liable, however, to the employee for the workers' compensation if the employee can recover from the employer under (a) and (b) of this section. Nothing in the language or the legislative history of the project owner provision suggests that the legislature meant to exclude the State and its political subdivisions from the definition of project owner. To the contrary, the legislative history manifests an intent to include the State and its political subdivisions. In response to Senator Scott Ogan's concern that the State of Alaska, being the largest project owner in the state, could be liable for workers' compensation if someone doesn't do their homework, [14] Jack Miller, attorney for the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, implied that the State would fall within the definition of project owner. [15] Mr. Miller also informed the legislature that AS 23.30.045(d)-(e) require the State to ascertain whether its contractors have workers' compensation insurance. [16] Nelson argues on appeal that Mr. Miller's testimony before the legislature should not be given great weight, but Senator Seekins, the sponsor of the project owner amendment, asked Mr. Miller to answer other legislators' questions about the legislation at two hearings. [17] Under these circumstances, Mr. Miller's testimony is entitled to greater weight than that of the average witness. [18] The statutory language evinces no attempt to exclude the State from the statute. Alaska Statute 23.30.055 provides in part, In this section, `employer' includes, in addition to the meaning given in AS 23.30.395, a person who, under AS 23.30.045(a) is liable for or potentially liable for securing payment of compensation. The definition of employer for purposes of exclusive liability includes entities that are not employers under AS 23.30.395project owners and contractors. Thus the distinction made in AS 23.30.395(20) between the State and other persons does not control our construction of AS 23.30.055. The general definition of person in AS 01.10.060 can be used to determine whether the Municipality can be a project owner. As Nelson concedes, in appropriate circumstances person can include the State and its political subdivisions. [19] We hold that it does here. Nelson also argues that AS 23.30.045(d) not the exclusive remedy provisiongoverns when the Municipality engages the services of a contractor because AS 23.30.045(d) is a more specific statute. Alaska Statute 23.30.045(d) provides that the State or a political subdivision can only award contracts to persons who submit proof of workers' compensation coverage. If the coverage is cancelled during the course of the contract, subsection.045(e) permits the State either to terminate its contract with the contractor or to pay for the contractor's workers' compensation policy. Nelson contends that AS 23.30.045(d) would be redundant if the State or the Municipality fell under the definition of project owner in AS 23.30.045(f)(2). In his view, AS 23.30.045(d) and .045(e) are more specific, so they should apply instead of the project owner provision, which Nelson considers more general. The Municipality responds that the project owner amendments affect the potential liability of the Municipality and that subsection .045(d) is not the sole source of the Municipality's potential liability. It maintains that because it is potentially liable for workers' compensation as a project owner, it is protected by AS 23.30.055's exclusive liability provision. When construing a statute, this court presume[s] that the legislature intended every word, sentence, or provision of a statute to have some purpose, force, and effect, and that no words or provisions are superfluous. [20] [A]ll sections of an act are to be construed together so that all have meaning and no section conflicts with another. [21] If one statutory section deals with a subject in general terms and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the two should be harmonized, if possible; but if there is a conflict, the specific section will control over the general. [22] [I]f two statutes conflict, then the later in time controls over the earlier. [23] We find no conflict between these statutes. Nelson argues that interpreting the statute so that the Municipality falls within the definition of project owner would make part of subsection .045(d) superfluous. There may be times when the two statutory provisions overlap, but they can also cover different situations. The two statutory subsections impose the same type of obligation on the Municipalitythey both require the Municipality to ensure that its contractors have workers' compensation insurance or assume the risk of being liable for workers' compensation benefitsbut AS 23.30.045(d) applies to a broader range of contracts than AS 23.30.045(f). By its terms, AS 23.30.045(d) applies any time the State or a political subdivision contracts with another party. Alaska Statute 23.30.045(f)(2) applies only to a subset of those contracts, those involving project owners. To be a project owner, a person must engage[] the services of a contractor. [24] A contractor does not include a vendor whose primary business is the sale or leasing of tools, equipment, other goods, or property. [25] The Municipality would not be a project owner if it entered into a contract with a vendor whose primary business was leasing equipment, but AS 23.30.045(d) would still require it to ensure that the vendor had workers' compensation coverage. We conclude that AS 23.30.045(d) and AS 23.30.045(f) do not conflict, and that the Municipality can be a project owner under AS 23.30.045(f)(2). We affirm the superior court's decision that the Municipality was a project owner here. [26]