Court Opinion

ID: 9567009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:46:49.159006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:50:32.908372
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice.
I dissent. At the time decedent left plaintiff’s employment, his dependents had a claim if he died within 2 years from silicosis. Shortly before this 2-year period expired, the Legislature extended the time from 2 to 5 years within which, if death occurred, dependents might receive benefits. If the majority opinion is correct, we are allowing dependents to recover on a new claim, non-existent at the time deceased left the employer, and non-existent under statutes then governing. Suppose the amendment had proposed to wipe out any claim of the dependents, even though the employee died from silicosis within the 2-year period? Wouldn’t we then talk about “vested rights” ? ’Can you make such rights less vested or vested for a longer period by a statute passed after such vesting? And suppose the legislature added several new contribriting causes of death? Is there any reason why it could extend the time to file claims, but could not add new causes of death ?
I believe insurance carriers should have some reasonable means of determining the extent of their liability. The carrier’s rates no doubt were based on an expectation of liability for only 2 years after an employee left his employment, — not for 5 years. Had the insurance carrier anticipated that the 2 year period effectively could be extended by the Legislature after the contingency of non-employment had occurred, it would seem to be impossible for its actuarial department intelligently to fix even fairly accurate rates. It takes little imagination to guess that had the carrier known of such possibility, sound business practice would have demanded a hike in rates as a buffer against such legislative eventuality.
Suppose in the instant case, after the carrier accepted the risk based on a statute requiring death within two years to establish liability, the legislature had increased the period within which dependents could recover if death occurred, to 25 years? Would the insurance carrier be required to assume the risk, under its agreement, from 2 to 25 years ?
It seems to the writer that the law existing at the time when the employee leaves his job, should govern his rights and those of his dependents, otherwise we are inviting confusion, discouraging private carriers from assuming the risk, and perhaps are raising a constitutional problem relating to due process.
WOLFE, C. J., does not participate herein.