VIGUE v M M CONSTRUCTION CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13621 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F .?,%OPITANA 1978 PETE V . VIGUE, C l a i m a n t , C l a i m a n t and R e s p o n d e n t , -vs- M & M CONSTRUCTION C O . , Employer, and ARGONAUT NORTHWEST INEULXANCE C O . , D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t , and F1 & ?,I CONSTRUCTION C O . , Employer, and S T A T E COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t , and NELSON LOGGING C O . , Employer, and G L A C I E R GENERAL ASSURANCE C O . , D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court H o n o r a b l e W i l l i a m E. H u n t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : H a r r i s , Jackson & M u r d o , H e l e n a , llontana R o b e r t ? . urd.o a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Y o n t a n a IM For R e s p o n d e n t s : R o b b and B o t s f o r d , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a N o r m a n R o b b argued, M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a T h o m a s K e e g a n a r g u e d , H e l e n a , !lantana Dexter Delaney, Missoula, Montana S u b m i t t e d : January 20, Decided: Filed: X&r A .#@ FEB 1-1978 1978 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison..delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court : Defendant Argonaut Northwest Insurance Company appeals from t h e findings and conclusions of t h e Workers' Compensation Court, entered September 2, 1976. The c o u r t concluded i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e claim i n question and t h e claim should properly come under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Idaho I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board. I t i s n o t disputed t h a t claimant Pete V. Vigue was employed by M & M Construction Company, a corporation r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e s t a t e of Montana with i t s corporate headquarters i n Missoula, Montana. M & M i s engaged i n road c o n s t r u c t i o n and has operated e x c l u s i v e l y i n Idaho s i n c e 1972 o r 1973. M & M i s insured under the workers' compensation laws of Idaho by a p p e l l a n t Argonaut and i n Montana by respondent S t a t e Compensation Insurance Fund ( S t a t e Fund). Claimant, a r e s i d e n t of Lolo, Montana, was h i r e d by M & M t o operate a "Cory" shovel on a road c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t i n Idaho. M & M subcontracted p a r t of t h e operation t o Nelson Logging Company, and Nelson Logging agreed t o supply t h e equipment f o r t h e i n i t i a l c l e a r i n g work. This equipment included a Cory shovel l o c a t e d i n Lolo, Montana. Claimant was t o l d t o accompany t h e shovel from Lolo t o Idaho and d r i v e a " f l a g car". On J u l y 21, claimant met with Ray Richardson, a t r u c k d r i v e r employed by M & M , t o load t h e shovel t h e t r i p t o Idaho. onto a lowboy t r a n s p o r t t r a i l e r f o r Claimant was attempting t o a d j u s t t h e posi- t i o n of t h e shovel on t h e t r a i l e r when t h e shovel overturned. Claimant was i n j u r e d i n t h e accident. Claimant has f i l e d claims f o r compensation i n Idaho w i t h a p p e l l a n t Argonaut and i n Montana with respondent S t a t e Fund. S t a t e Fund i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e Montana claim and requested a hearing before t h e Workers' Compensation Court. A hearing was h e l d involving claimant and a l l t h r e e i n s u r e r s : S t a t e Fund;: Argonaut; and G l a c i e r General Assurance Company ( t h e c a r r i e r f o r Nelson Logging). The Workers' Compensation Court h e l d i t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e claim, Basic t o t h e Court's d e c i s i o n i s i t s finding: "That, a s a matter of law, t h e v a l i d r e c i p r o c i t y agreement between t h e S t a t e of Montana and t h e S t a t e of Idaho i s c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s matter." I n t h e r e c i p r o c i t y agreement, e f f e c t i v e February 1, 1968, t h e I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board of Idaho agreed t o : ** "* assume and e x e r c i s e e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over compensation claims of any Idaho workman i n j u r e d i n the S t a t e of Montana. ** *I' The c o u r t found t h a t claimant was an:"Idaho workman1' w i t h i n t h e terms of t h e agreement. The e f f e c t of t h e r e c i p r o c i t y agreement i s c r u c i a l because t h e Workers' Compensation Act of Montana does n o t apply i f t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 92-614(3), R.C.M. 1947, a r e met: " I f a worker from another s t a t e and h i s employer from another s t a t e a r e temporarily engaged i n work w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e , t h i s a c t s h a l l n o t apply t o them: " ( a ) i f t h e employer and employee a r e bound by t h e pcovisions of t h e Workers' Compensation Law o r s i m i l a r law of such o t h e r s t a t e which a p p l i e s t o them while they a r e i n t h e s t a t e of Montana, and "(b) i f t h e Workers' Compensation Act of t h i s s t a t e i s recognized and given e f f e c t a s t h e exclusive remedy f o r workers employed i n t h i s s t a t e who a r e i n j u r e d while temporarily employed i n such o t h e r s t a t e . ' ' (Emphasis added. ) The r e c i p r o c i t y agreement c l e a r l y s t a t e s how it i s t o be implemented: "For t h e purpose of implementing t h e terms of t h i s agreement, t h e p a r t i e s agree upon t h e following procedures: "The Idaho IAB w i l l upon r e q u e s t and on behalf of an Idaho employer i s s u e a c e r t i f i c a t e of e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l coverage t o t h e Montana I A B and t h e l a t t e r upon request and on behalf of a Montana employer w i l l i s s u e i t s c e r t i f i c a t e of e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l coverage t o t h e Idaho IAB. Such c e r t i f i c a t e s may be cancelled o r revoked a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e i s s u i n g agency. Due n o t i c e of issuance, modification and c a n c e l l a t i o n of any such c e r t i f i c a t e s h a l l be given t o t h e employer and t o h i s insurance c a r r i e r , i f any." I n t h e i n s t a n t case no c e r t i f i c a t e was ever obtained o r introduced i n t o evidence t o show t h a t t h e Idaho I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board would e x e r c i s e e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l coverage while claimant was i n Montana. The issuance of such a c e r t i f i c a t e i s expressly authorized by s t a t u t e , and i s prima f a c i e evidence of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation Law of t h e certifying state. Section 92-614(4), R.C.M. 1947. I n the absence of t h e issuance of a c e r t i f i c a t e of e x t r a t e r r i t o r i a l coverage, i t i s c l e a r t h e r e c i p r o c i t y agreement was never properly implemented, and t h e r e was no showing t h a t claimant was covered by t h e workers' compensation law of Idaho while i n Montana. The f i n d i n g of t h e Workers' Compensation Court t h a t t h e r e c i p r o c i t y agreement i s c o n t r o l l i n g i s erroneous. The judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation Court i s reversed and t h e case i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings i n accord with t h i s opinion. This appeal d i d n o t include a challenge t o t h e f i n d i n g of t h e workers' Compensation Court t h a t M & M, and n o t Nelson Logging, was claimant's employer. Therefore, t h i s appeal i s d i s - missed a s t o Nelson Logging and i t s i n s u r e r , G l a c i e r General Assurance Company. ,- y P W ~ h t i e f~ u s t i c e . We Concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.