Asurion Services, LLC v. Montana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n
2017 MT 140
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Christy Harris, an Asurion (formerly National Electronics Warranty) employee, filed workers’ compensation claims for injuries in 2002; Lumbermens (Asurion’s Plan 2 insurer) accepted and adjusted the claims.
- Lumbermens was declared insolvent in 2013; Montana Insurance Guaranty Association (MIGA) assumed handling and paid Harris’s covered claims under the MIGA Act.
- MIGA sought reimbursement from Asurion under § 33-10-114(2), MCA (statutory right to recover covered payments from insureds with > $50M net worth).
- Asurion filed a declaratory judgment action; district court granted Asurion summary judgment and denied MIGA’s motion, holding the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) exclusivity (§ 39-71-411, MCA and Mont. Const. art. II, § 16) bars MIGA’s reimbursement claim.
- Montana Supreme Court affirmed: employer that satisfied Plan 2 insurance obligations remains protected by the WCA exclusivity rule; MIGA’s reimbursement claim conflicts with the more specific WCA exclusivity and cannot proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Asurion) | Defendant's Argument (MIGA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MIGA may recover from an insured-employer under § 33-10-114(2) after the insurer’s insolvency | The WCA exclusivity bars claims for contribution or indemnity against an insured employer who complied with insurance requirements, so MIGA cannot recover | § 33-10-114(2) applies generally to insurers and permits MIGA to recover payments from wealthy insureds; insurer insolvency effectively cancels coverage, leaving employer exposed | Held for Asurion: WCA exclusivity (§ 39-71-411 and Mont. Const. art. II § 16) is more specific and bars MIGA’s reimbursement claim against a compliant Plan 2 employer |
| Whether insurer insolvency renders an employer “uninsured” for purposes of WCA obligations | Employer complied with WCA when it obtained Plan 2 coverage in 2002; later insurer insolvency does not retroactively make employer uninsured for accepted claims | MIGA: insolvency / judicial cancellation of policy means employer became uninsured and thus liable to reimburse MIGA | Held for Asurion: employer remained compliant; Lumbermens’ later insolvency did not make Asurion an uninsured employer for these claims |
| Whether § 33-10-114(2) (general MIGA recovery provision) conflicts with and is displaced by WCA exclusivity (specific statute) | WCA exclusivity is the specific rule governing workers’ compensation liability and controls over the more general MIGA statute | MIGA: MIGA Act should apply to all direct insurance, including workers’ compensation, and permit recovery | Held for Asurion: specific WCA exclusivity controls; general MIGA recovery statute cannot be used to impose indemnity/contribution liability on an insured employer |
| Whether MIGA’s remedy is characterized as third-party indemnity/contribution barred by the WCA | Asurion: MIGA’s statutory reimbursement is equivalent to a third-party indemnity/contribution claim and is barred | MIGA: its statutory claim is not an indemnity/contribution claim against an employer but a statutory reimbursement right arising from insurer insolvency | Held for Asurion: court treats MIGA’s claim as effectively a third‑party indemnity/contribution claim barred by § 39-71-411 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 313 P.3d 839 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 280 P.3d 240 (Mont. 2012) (employer has no role in adjusting employee’s workers’ compensation claim when insured under Plan 2 or 3)
- Stratemeyer v. Lincoln County, 915 P.2d 175 (Mont. 1996) (exclusive remedy doctrine central to workers’ compensation)
- Shea v. North Butte Mining Co., 179 P. 499 (Mont. 1919) (historical foundation of exclusive-remedy principle)
- Cordier v. Stetson-Ross, Inc., 604 P.2d 86 (Mont. 1979) (distinguishing third‑party indemnity/contribution claims barred by WCA from independent obligations)
- DeShaw v. Johnson, 472 P.2d 298 (Mont. 1970) (third‑party contract indemnity based on independent duty may not be barred by WCA exclusivity)