Montana’s Exclusive Remedy Rules

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Montana, workers’ compensation generally is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an insured employer for a work-related injury, occupational disease, or death. Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-411. This means that the injured employee generally cannot file a personal injury lawsuit against a covered employer, in which the employer might incur a significant money damages award. 

The exclusivity provision also bars lawsuits by the employee’s personal representative and persons having a claim to compensation arising from the employee’s injury or death. It also protects the employer against claims for contribution or indemnity asserted by a third party from whom damages are sought because of the employee’s injury or death.

CO-EMPLOYEES

Montana generally extends workers’ compensation immunity to fellow employees for injuries occurring in the course of employment. Thus, an employee generally cannot circumvent workers’ compensation exclusivity by suing a co-worker for ordinary negligence that caused a covered workplace injury. 

There is an important exception for intentional injuries. An employee intentionally injured by a fellow employee while performing employment duties may bring a damages action against that person, in addition to receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

TYPES OF INJURIES COVERED BY RULE

The exclusivity rule generally encompasses:

• Physical injuries caused by covered workplace accidents
• Occupational diseases
• Death resulting from a compensable workplace injury or occupational disease

The rule does not immunize an employer from every lawsuit brought by an employee. Exclusivity applies to claims falling within the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Act, subject to statutory exceptions.

MENTAL INJURIES – PTSD

Montana takes a restrictive approach to stand-alone mental-injury claims. The WCA expressly excludes from workers’ compensation coverage a physical or mental condition arising from emotional or mental stress.

Accordingly, Montana does not generally recognize PTSD arising solely from a psychologically traumatic event as a compensable injury merely because the event occurred at work.

INTENTIONAL INJURIES

Montana recognizes a narrow statutory exception to exclusivity for an intentional injury caused by an employer or fellow employee. However, the injured employee must establish the intentional and deliberate act by clear and convincing evidence.

The statute defines an “intentional injury” as one caused by an intentional and deliberate act that:

1. Was specifically and actually intended to cause injury to the employee; and
2. Was committed with actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur.

It is not enough merely to establish that the employer or co-employee acted with negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or knowledge that conduct created a substantial risk of injury.

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

Montana’s exclusive remedy rule generally does not prevent an employee from pursuing a claim against a responsible third party who is neither the employer nor a fellow employee. 

For example, an employee injured in a work-related automobile accident caused by an unrelated negligent driver may potentially receive workers’ compensation benefits and sue the negligent driver.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO SECURE COVERAGE

Montana makes an important exception to exclusivity when an employer fails to obtain required workers’ compensation coverage. In that case, the injured employee can sue the employer for personal injuries. 

TYPES OF EMPLOYEES NOT COVERED

Montana does not require workers’ compensation coverage for certain types of employers and employees, including household and domestic employees, certain direct sellers, sole proprietors, certain ministers and members of religious orders, certain respite-care workers, athletes employed by teams or clubs engaged in specified contact sports, and musicians performing under written contracts. Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-401.

RECENT CASES

Ramsbacher v. Jim Palmer Trucking, 391 Mont. 297, 417 P.3d 313 (MT 2018)

A truck driver was employed through PPC, a professional employer organization, and assigned to work for a trucking company. The driver was seriously injured while attempting to repair a JPT truck that had broken down while he was driving it. PPC's workers’ compensation insurer paid benefits for the injury. The driver nevertheless filed a tort action against JPT, alleging that JPT failed to provide him with a safe workplace The district court held that his tort claim was barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. It concluded that both the professional employer organization and the client trucking company qualified as immediate employers and were protected by the workers’ compensation exclusivity rule. 

The court also rejected the driver’s state constitutional challenge. It noted that the fact that PPC was responsible for administering and paying the workers’ compensation premiums did not mean JPT failed to provide coverage. JPT had contracted and paid PPC to provide workers’ compensation insurance as part of the PEO relationship. Accordingly, extending immunity to JPT did not deprive the driver of his constitutional right to full legal redress. 

Moreau v. Transportation Insurance Co., 390 Mont. 102, 414 P.3d 810 (MT 2018)

A miner developed asbestos-related lung cancer and died. His estate sued the employer in tort. The Montana Supreme Court reiterated that an employee suffering a work-related injury is limited to WCA benefits. Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy with respect to an insured employer’s liability for a work-related injury and the employer is immune from the employee’s tort claims. When the employer is insured and the injury falls within the workers' compensation system, the employee ordinarily cannot seek additional tort damages from the employer merely because workers' compensation benefits do not fully compensate him for all his losses. 

EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEARBY STATES

Washington 

Share This Article: