29 C.F.R. § 500.122

Adjustments in insurance requirements when workers' compensation coverage is provided under State law

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If a farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association referred to in § 500.120 is the employer of a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker for purposes of a State workers' compensation law and such employer provides workers' compensation coverage for such worker in the case of bodily injury or death as provided by such State law, the following adjustments in the insurance requirements relating to having an insurance policy or liability bond apply:

(1) Except as provided in § 500.123, no vehicle liability insurance policy or liability bond shall be required of the employer, if such worker is transported only under circumstances for which there is coverage under such State law.

(2) A liability insurance policy or liability bond shall be required of the employer for circumstances under which coverage for the transportation of such worker is not provided under such State law.

(b) [Reserved]

(c) A farm labor contractor, agricultural employer or agricultural association who is the employer of a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker may evidence the issuance of workers' compensation insurance and passenger insurance under paragraph (a) of this section by obtaining and making available upon request to the Department of Labor:

(1) A workers' compensation coverage policy of insurance; and

(2) A certificate of liability insurance covering transportation of all passengers who are not employees and of workers whose transportation by the employer is not covered by workers' compensation insurance. See § 500.121.

(d) In the absence of the insurance certificate referred to under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Department of Labor will look to the actual policy of insurance or liability bond in determining compliance with the Act and these regulations.

[48 FR 36741, Aug. 12, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 30327, July 2, 1991; 61 FR 24866, May 16, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1989–2000 · leading case: Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638 (1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638 (1990). “” 29 CFR §500.122 (b) (1989). As an initial matter, we reject petitioner’s view that AWPA’s failure to speak directly to the pre-emption of state exclusivity provisions creates a statutory “gap” within the meaning of Chevron U.”

Nagahi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 219 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2000). “1384 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 500.122 (b) (1989)). The Supreme Court found that this regulation was not due any deference because it fell outside of the delegated authority granted by Congress.”

Saintida v. Tyre, L., 783 F. Supp. 1368 (S.D. Fla. 1992). “§ 1841 (c); 29 C.F.R. § 500.122 . The Plaintiffs’ injuries resulting from the accident would have been compen-sable under Florida Workers’ Compensation Act.”

Ramsford Barrett v. Adams Fruit Co., Inc., 867 F.2d 1305 (11th Cir. 1989). “” The district court relied on a Department of Labor regulation which provides that “[wjhere a State workers’ compensation law is applicable and coverage is provided for a migrant or seasonal agricultural worker by the employer, the workers’ compensation benefits are the…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.