PART IV.
SECURITY FOR COMPENSATION; EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF
INJURED
EMPLOYEES; FUNDS
A. Security
for Compensation
Case Notes
In the context of the Hawaii workers' compensation scheme, a
physician is an incidental beneficiary rather than an intended third-party
beneficiary of the employer's workers' compensation insurance policy; thus, as
physician was not an intended third-party beneficiary of insurer's insurance
policy, physician did not have a cause of action in tort for bad faith against
insurer. 114 H. 122 (App.), 157 P.3d 561 (2007).
§386-121 Security for payment of
compensation; misdemeanor. (a) Employers, except the State, any county or
political subdivision of the State, or other public entity within the State,
shall secure compensation to their employees in one of the following ways:
(1) By insuring and keeping insured the payment of
compensation with any stock, mutual, reciprocal, or other insurer authorized to
transact the business of workers' compensation insurance in the State;
(2) By depositing and maintaining with the state
director of finance security satisfactory to the director of labor and
industrial relations securing the payment by the employer of compensation
according to the terms of this chapter;
(3) Upon furnishing satisfactory proof to the
director of the employer's solvency and financial ability to pay the
compensation and benefits herein provided, no insurance or security shall be
required, and the employer shall make payments directly to the employer's
employees, as they may become entitled to receive the same under the terms and
conditions of this chapter;
(4) An employer desiring to maintain security for
payment of compensation under this section shall file an application with the
director on a form provided for this purpose together with the employer's most
current audited annual financial statement;
(5) Where an applicant for self-insurance is a
subsidiary and the subsidiary cannot submit an independent current audited
annual financial statement, an indemnity agreement approved as to form and
content by the director shall be executed by the parent corporation of the
subsidiary and submitted with its application;
(6) Each self-insurance authorization shall be
effective from the date of issuance until June 30 of each calendar year;
(7) A notice of intention to cancel self-insurance
shall be submitted in writing to the director within at least thirty days prior
to the effective date of cancellation;
(8) A self-insurance authorization may be revoked by
the director for good cause shown upon notification in writing to the
self-insurer;
(9) By membership in a workers' compensation
self-insurance group with a valid certificate of approval under section
386-194; or
(10) By membership in a workers' compensation group
insured by a captive insurer under chapter 431, article 19.
Any person who wilfully misrepresents any fact
in order to obtain the benefits of paragraph (3) shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(b) Any decision of the director rendered
under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) of this section with respect to
the amount of security required or refusing to permit no security to be given
shall be subject to review on appeal in conformity with sections 386-87 and
386-88. [L 1963, c 116, pt of §1; Supp, §97-120; HRS §386-121; am L 1975, c 41,
§1; gen ch 1985; am L 1986, c 304, §3; am L 1991, c 79, §1; am L Sp 2005, c 11,
§12]
Case Notes
Claimant may make insurance carrier party defendant by
original claim or subsequent separate claim. 27 H. 476 (1923).
Procedure informal. 32 H. 162 (1931).
Cited: 31 H. 554 (1930).
Notes of Decisions
Frank v. Hawaii Planing Mill Found., 963 P.2d 349 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 6× “However, if the borrowing employer does not secure compensation to the employee as provided for in HRS § 386-121, then the lending employer is considered to be the employer.”
Crompton v. Tern Corp., 924 P.2d 169 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 7× “Because KAC failed to carry insurance or provide security for workers’ compensation benefits for its employees in Hawai'i as required by HRS § 386-121 (1993), 3 the Director also assessed *4 KAC a penalty pursuant to HRS § 386-123 (199S).”
Fonseca v. Pac. Constr. Co., Ltd., 513 P.2d 156 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 4× “[1] Section 97-120 mentioned in the quoted provision is RLH 1955, § 97-120 (1965 Supplement), and is presently compiled in HRS § 386-121. It requires an employer to secure compensation to his employees by: (1) obtaining workmen's compensation insurance; (2) depositing and…”
Travelers Ins. v. Hawaii Roofing, Inc., 641 P.2d 1333 (Haw. 1982).
· cites it 2× “But HRS § § 386-121 through 128 constitute an essential component of an independent statutory system of legal relations designed to shield workers from the consequences of work injuries.”
Frank v. Hawaii Planing Mill Found., 967 P.2d 662 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 16× “However, if the borrowing employer does not secure compensation to the employee as provided for in HRS § 386-121, then the lending employer is considered to be the employer.”
Kepa v. Hawaii Welding Co., Ltd., 545 P.2d 687 (Haw. 1976).
“The employee shall be deemed to remain in the sole employment of the original employer if the other person fads to secure compensation to the employee as provided in section 386-121. Whenever an independent contractor undertakes to perform work for another person pursuant to…”
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. UNITED NAT. INS., 731 P.2d 167 (Haw. 1987).
“The employee shall be deemed to remain in the sole employment of the original employer if the other person fails to secure compensation to the employee as provided in section 386-121. Whenever an independent contractor undertakes to perform work for another person pursuant to…”
Jordan v. Rita, 670 P.2d 457 (Haw. 1983).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 386-121(a). Jordan, therefore, was compelled to look elsewhere for the compensation due and filed a claim therefor with the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations.”
Harter v. Cnty. of Hawaii, 628 P.2d 629 (Haw. 1981).
“The employee shall be deemed to remain in the sole employment of the original employer if the other person fails to secure compensation to the employee as provided in section 386-121. The agreement stated in part: 1.”
Garcia v. Fernandez (Haw. App. 2020).
· cites it 17× “Fernandez under HRS §§ 386-121 and 386-123, by calculating the penalty from the date of Garcia's work injury on October 1, 2014, instead of the date she began working for Ms.”
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. United Nat'l Ins., 731 P.2d 167 (Haw. 1987).
“The employee shall be deemed to remain in the sole employment of the original employer if the other person fails to secure compensation to the employee as provided in section 386-121. Whenever an independent contractor undertakes to perform work for another person pursuant to…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-121(a) — 3 cases
Frank v. Hawaii Planing Mill Found., 967 P.2d 662 (Haw. App. 1998).
“However, if the borrowing employer does not secure compensation to the employee as provided for in HRS § 386-121, then the lending employer is considered to be the employer.”
Jordan v. Rita, 670 P.2d 457 (Haw. 1983).
“See HRS § 386-121(a). Jordan, therefore, was compelled to look elsewhere for the compensation due and filed a claim therefor with the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations.”
Garcia v. Fernandez (Haw. App. 2020).
“Fernandez under HRS §§ 386-121 and 386-123, by calculating the penalty from the date of Garcia's work injury on October 1, 2014, instead of the date she began working for Ms.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 386-121(a)(l) — 1 case
Frank v. Hawaii Planing Mill Found., 967 P.2d 662 (Haw. App. 1998).
“However, if the borrowing employer does not secure compensation to the employee as provided for in HRS § 386-121, then the lending employer is considered to be the employer.”
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.