Opinion ID: 2142024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim of Reitan-Lerdahl & Company.

Text: Because of our conclusion as to the lack of evidence to establish an agency relationship between Volck corporation and Voigt, Reitan-Lerdahl & Company's $1,778.27 claim for unpaid insurance premiums cannot be asserted against the fund held by the state. Sec. 289.53 (1), Stats., which would have been authority for a $500 claim for unpaid workmen's compensation insurance premiums against the fund, does not benefit Reitan-Lerdahl & Company's position because this insurance was furnished to Volck corporation, which does not qualify as a contractor within the meaning of this statute as defined by this court in the Lehmann Tire & Supply Case, supra . However, even if an agency relationship had been established, the $1,278.27 of unpaid public liability insurance premiums would not have been lienable under this statute. This is because the statutory enumeration of lienable items expressly includes only premiums for workmen's compensation insurance. Therefore, the expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon of statutory construction precludes the judicial inclusion of other insurance premiums. Voigt's contract with the state obligated him to discharge all liabilities for injuries under ch. 102, Stats. Based upon this provision, counsel for Reitan-Lerdahl & Company also argue that its claim for workmen's compensation premiums must be upheld under the provisions of sec. 102.06, Stats. This statute provides that, An employer shall be liable for compensation to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor under him who is not subject to this chapter, or who has not complied with the conditions of sec. 102.28 (2) in any case where such employer would have been liable for compensation if such employee had been working directly for him, . . . (Italics supplied.) Counsel would interpret this statute to make Voigt responsible for workmen's compensation insurance premiums on Volck corporation's employees. We do not deem this a correct construction of the statutory language. The statute only makes an employer liable to employees for compensation. It does not include responsibility to the supplier of workmen's compensation insurance to employees of subcontractors. Therefore, neither the portion of Reitan-Lerdahl & Company's claim for unpaid workmen's compensation insurance premiums, nor the portion for unpaid public liability insurance premiums, is lienable. By the Court. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded to enter the proper judgment in conformity with this opinion. The following memorandum was filed October 2, 1962: