Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workers Compensation Vehicle Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers consider clarifying vehicle use and workers' compensation (House Bill 367)
Summary
House Bill 367 would clarify that provision of a company vehicle or reimbursement alone does not determine whether an injury is compensable under Montana workers' compensation law, directing courts to consider other factors. A wide range of insurers, contractors and business groups testified in favor, saying the bill closes ambiguity created by case law and prevents unintended exposures for employers while preserving coverage for on‑duty driving.
Representative Ed Buttry presented House Bill 367 as a clarification to Montana's workers' compensation law, saying the measure "simply states the fact that the employer is providing the vehicle or reimbursing the employee for use of the vehicle is not dispositive of whether the employee is covered by the employer's workers compensation plan." The sponsor said the change instructs courts to consider other factors when determining compensability.
Proponents from the Montana Self Insurers Association, Montana Contractor Compensation Fund, Montana Building Industry Association, Montana State Fund, Montana Chamber of Commerce, NFIB and others described frequent factual patterns that cause disputes over coverage when employers provide vehicles or allowances. Peter Strauss (Montana Self Insurers Association) argued the bill's intent succinctly: "if you're in the course and scope of your work, you should be covered. However, if you're not in the course and scope of your work, you should not be."
Proponents repeatedly said the bill is not intended to change the going‑and‑coming rule or to remove coverage for legitimate on‑duty driving; instead, they said, it will reduce uncertainty and litigation by prompting a fact‑intensive analysis rather than an outcome based solely on vehicle provision. Insurers and State Fund witnesses said examiners regularly encounter vehicle‑related claims and that the bill would help guide initial determinations and clarify primary payer responsibilities among auto, liability and workers' compensation policies.
Committee members asked how the bill would affect pending cases and whether it would alter insurers' responsibilities; witnesses agreed the bill would not retroactively change cases already ready for decision and emphasized the bill's clarifying—rather than substantive—nature. The hearing ended with sponsor closing and no committee vote recorded.
