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, 1978

Decided: FEB 1-1978 Filed: X&r

A .#@ 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 onto a lowboy t r a n s p o r t t r a i l e r f o r t h e t r i p t o Idaho. 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

PW

~ h t i e f~ u s t i c e . We Concur: