Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workers Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would clarify when employer-provided or reimbursed vehicles trigger workers' compensation coverage
Summary
Representative Ed Buttrey told the committee House Bill 367 would clarify that furnishing an employer vehicle or reimbursing an employee for travel expense is not by itself dispositive of workers' compensation coverage; proponents from insurers, contractors and business groups said the change would reduce uncertainty and litigation.
Representative Ed Buttrey opened House Bill 367, saying the bill would resolve ambiguity about workers' compensation liability when employers provide vehicles or reimburse employees for using personal vehicles.
Proponents including the Montana Self Insurers Association, Montana Contractor Compensation Fund, Montana Building Industry Association, Montana State Fund, Montana Chamber, and others told the committee they support the bill because current court decisions have in some cases treated mere provision of a vehicle or an allowance as dispositive that an injury in the vehicle is compensable under workers' compensation law.
Vicki Evans, executive director of the Montana Contractor Compensation Fund, and other proponents described fact patterns where employees used employer vehicles for permitted personal use or where employees received vehicle allowances, and courts have reached different results. Proponents said HB 367 would make clear that furnishing a vehicle or providing reimbursement is not by itself dispositive; courts should assess the full factual context about whether an injury arose in the course and scope of employment.
Claims-handling perspective: Nick Mazanec of Montana State Fund and the department's claims counsel described frequent fact-heavy disputes over whether travel is work-related and said claims examiners would benefit from statutory clarification. Department counsel said the uninsured employers fund and civil and criminal penalties already apply to employers that knowingly fail to insure employees.
Committee exchange: Senators pressed proponents on examples such as on-call workers and employees driving personal vehicles with employer allowances; proponents said being on-call or responding to a work call would still be considered work, and the bill would not change the ‘‘going and coming’’ rule. Proponents repeatedly emphasized the bill clarifies consideration factors rather than creating a blanket exclusion.
Ending: Proponents urged a do-pass recommendation; the hearing included no opponents in person or online and no formal committee vote was recorded.
