(1) If an employee, while working outside the territorial limits of this state, suffers an
injury on account of which the employee, or in the event of the employee's death,
his or her dependents, would have been entitled to the benefits provided by this
chapter had that injury occurred within this state, that employee, or in the event of
the employee's death resulting from that injury, his or her dependents, shall be
entitled to the benefits provided by this chapter, if at the time of the injury:
(a) His or her employment is principally localized in this state; or
(b) He or she is working under a contract of hire made in this state in employment
not principally localized in any state; or
(c) He or she is working under a contract of hire made in this state in employment
principally localized in another state whose workers' compensation law is not
applicable to his or her employer; or
(d) He or she is working under a contract of hire made in this state for
employment outside the United States and Canada.
(2) The payment or award of benefits under the workers' compensation law of another
state, territory, province, or foreign nation to an employee or his or her dependents
otherwise entitled on account of such injury or death to the benefits of this chapter
shall not be a bar to a claim for benefits under this chapter, if a claim under this
chapter is filed within two (2) years after that injury or death. If compensation is
paid or awarded under this chapter:
(a) The medical and related benefits furnished or paid for by the employer under
another jurisdiction's workers' compensation law on account of such injury or
death shall be credited against the medical and related benefits to which the
employee would have been entitled under this chapter had claim been made
solely under this chapter;
(b) The total amount of all income benefits paid or awarded the employee under
another jurisdiction's workers' compensation law shall be credited against the
total amount of income benefits which would have been due the employee
under this chapter, had claim been made solely under this chapter; and
(c) The total amount of death benefits paid or awarded under another
jurisdiction's workers' compensation law shall be credited against the total
amount of death benefits due under this chapter.
(3) If any employee is entitled to the benefits of this chapter by reason of an injury
sustained in this state in employment by an employer who is domiciled in another
state and who has not secured the payment of compensation as required by this
chapter, the employer or his carrier may file with the commissioner a certificate,
issued by the commission or agency of the other state having jurisdiction over
workers' compensation claims, certifying that the employer has secured the payment
of compensation under the workers' compensation law of the other state and that
with respect to the injury the employee is entitled to the benefits provided under that
law, and that the benefits to which the employee or his or her dependents is entitled
are at least as great as those to which he or she would be entitled if the injury
occurred and was processed under Kentucky law, under Kentucky coverage. In this
event:
(a) The filing of the certificate shall constitute an appointment by the employer or
his carrier of the commissioner as his or her agent for acceptance of the
service of process in any proceeding brought by the employee or his or her
dependents to enforce his, her, or their rights under this chapter on account of
the injury;
(b) The commissioner shall send to the employer or carrier, by certified mail to
the address shown on the certificate, a true copy of any notice of claim or
other process served on the commissioner by the employee or his or her
dependents in any proceeding brought to enforce his, her, or their rights under
this chapter;
(c) 1. If the employer is a qualified self-insurer under the workers'
compensation law of the other state, the employer shall, upon
submission of evidence satisfactory to the commissioner, of its ability to
meet its liability to the employee under this chapter, be deemed to be a
qualified self-insurer under this chapter;
2. If the employer's liability under the workers' compensation law of the
other state is insured, the employer's carrier, as to the employee or his or
her dependents only, shall be deemed to be an insurer authorized to
write insurance under and be subject to this chapter; however, unless its
contract with the employer requires it to pay an amount equivalent to the
compensation benefits provided by this chapter, its liability for income
benefits or medical and related benefits shall not exceed the amounts of
the benefits for which the insurer would have been liable under the
workers' compensation law of the other state;
(d) If the total amount for which the employer's insurance is liable under (c)
above is less than the total of the compensation benefits to which the
employee is entitled under this chapter, the commissioner may, if he or she
deems it necessary, require the employer to file security, satisfactory to the
commissioner, to secure the payment of benefits due the employee or his or
her dependents under this chapter; and
(e) Upon compliance with the preceding requirements of this subsection (3), the
employer, as to the employee only, shall be deemed to have secured the
payment of compensation under this chapter.
(4) Any professional athlete, coach, or trainer who has been hired outside this
Commonwealth by an employer domiciled in a foreign state, including professional
baseball, basketball, football, and ice-hockey clubs, is exempted from the provisions
of this chapter while that employee is temporarily within this Commonwealth doing
work for the employer, if the foreign employer has secured workers' compensation
insurance coverage under the workers' compensation law of the foreign state, so as
to cover the employee's employment while in this Commonwealth. The benefits
under the workers' compensation law of the foreign state shall be the exclusive
remedy against that employer and any affiliated club for any injury, whether
resulting in death or not, received by any employee while working for that employer
in this Commonwealth.
(5) As used in this section:
(a) "United States" includes only the states of the United States and the District of
Columbia;
(b) "State" includes any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, or
any province of Canada;
(c) "Carrier" includes any insurance company licensed to write workers'
compensation insurance in any state of the United States or any state or
provincial fund which insures employers against their liabilities under a
workers' compensation law;
(d) A person's employment is principally localized in this or another state when:
1. His or her employer has a place of business in this or the other state and
he or she regularly works at or from that place of business, or
2. If subparagraph 1. foregoing is not applicable, he or she is domiciled and
spends a substantial part of his or her working time in the service of his
or her employer in this or the other state;
(e) An employee whose duties require him or her to travel regularly in the service
of his or her employer in this and one (1) or more other states may, by written
agreement with his or her employer, provide that his or her employment is
principally localized in this or another state, and, unless the other state refuses
jurisdiction, the agreement shall be given effect under this chapter;
(f) "Workers' compensation law" includes "occupational disease law."
Effective: July 15, 2010
History: Amended 2010 Ky. Acts ch. 24, sec. 1839, effective July 15, 2010. --
Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 355, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1996. -- Amended 1994
Ky. Acts ch. 181, Part 15, sec. 94, effective April 4, 1994. -- Amended 1980 Ky.
Acts ch. 114, sec. 95, effective July 15, 1980. -- Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 191,
sec. 2. -- Created 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 78, sec. 7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
Davis v. Wilson, 619 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
Davis v. Wilson, 619 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 10× “Wilson claims entitlement to extraterritorial coverage under either subsection (a) or (b) of KRS 342.670(1). The subsections provide coverage to employees for injuries incurred outside Kentucky if: (a) His employment is principally localized in this state, or (b) He is working…”
Haney v. Butler, 990 S.W.2d 611 (Ky. 1999).
· cites it 14× “Because there was no evidence that Alabama law did not apply to the claim, the ALJ concluded that the claim did not come within the jurisdictional requisites of KRS 342.670; therefore, it was dismissed.”
Eck Miller Transp. Corp. v. Wagers, 833 S.W.2d 854 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 12× “*856 KRS 342.670 governs the extraterritorial application of Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Boyd v. C & H Transp., 902 S.W.2d 823 (Ky. 1995).
· cites it 8× “The Administrative Law Judge found KRS 342.670, the extraterritorial statute, applicable but concluded that the claim was not barred by the two year statute of limitations provision contained in subsection 2 of that enactment.”
United Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Kaelin, 602 S.W.2d 176 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 8× “The issues herein are: (1) whether the circuit court erred in failing to dismiss the employee’s claim as not falling within the extraterritorial provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, KRS 342.670; (2) whether the circuit court erred in directing the Board to make a…”
Union Underwear Co., Inc. v. Barnhart, 50 S.W.3d 188 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 2× “would have been entitled to the benefits provided by this chapter had such injury occurred within this state, such employee.”
Custard Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. Aldridge, 57 S.W.3d 284 (Ky. 2001).
· cites it 2× “700, KRS 342.670(2) permits the employer to receive a subrogation credit equal to the amount of medical benefits and the “total amount of all income benefits” that the employer has paid under the workers’ compensation law of another state.”
Amax Coal Co. v. Smith, 748 S.W.2d 158 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “The applicable statute for determining whether Kentucky has extraterritorial coverage for this claim is KRS 342.670. Subsections (1) and (a) provided in pertinent part as follows: (1) If an employe, while working outside the territorial limits of this state, suffers an injury on…”
Bryant v. Jericol Mining, Inc., 758 S.W.2d 45 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “The essential question on appeal is whether a nonresident employee of a nonresident, uninsured employer is covered by Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act when the employee sustains an injury by virtue of the employment in Kentucky and, more specifically, whether such…”
Heartland Express v. Gardner, 675 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2004).
“Code § 25-5-35(d)(2) (2000); Ky. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 342.670(l)(b) (Michie 1997); N.”
Graham v. TSL, LTD., 350 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. 2011).
· cites it 4× “TSL denied the claim, asserting that Kentucky lacked extraterritorial jurisdiction under KRS 342.670 because the em *431 ployment was not principally localized in any state and the contract for hire was made in Missouri.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(1) — 16 cases
Davis v. Wilson, 619 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“Wilson claims entitlement to extraterritorial coverage under either subsection (a) or (b) of KRS 342.670(1). The subsections provide coverage to employees for injuries incurred outside Kentucky if: (a) His employment is principally localized in this state, or (b) He is working…”
Amax Coal Co. v. Smith, 748 S.W.2d 158 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988).
“The applicable statute for determining whether Kentucky has extraterritorial coverage for this claim is KRS 342.670. Subsections (1) and (a) provided in pertinent part as follows: (1) If an employe, while working outside the territorial limits of this state, suffers an injury on…”
Graham v. TSL, LTD., 350 S.W.3d 430 (Ky. 2011).
“TSL denied the claim, asserting that Kentucky lacked extraterritorial jurisdiction under KRS 342.670 because the em *431 ployment was not principally localized in any state and the contract for hire was made in Missouri.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(1)(a) — 3 cases
Davis v. Wilson, 619 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“Wilson claims entitlement to extraterritorial coverage under either subsection (a) or (b) of KRS 342.670(1). The subsections provide coverage to employees for injuries incurred outside Kentucky if: (a) His employment is principally localized in this state, or (b) He is working…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(1)(b) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(1)(c) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(1)(d) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(2) — 4 cases
Boyd v. C & H Transp., 902 S.W.2d 823 (Ky. 1995).
“The Administrative Law Judge found KRS 342.670, the extraterritorial statute, applicable but concluded that the claim was not barred by the two year statute of limitations provision contained in subsection 2 of that enactment.”
Custard Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. Aldridge, 57 S.W.3d 284 (Ky. 2001).
“700, KRS 342.670(2) permits the employer to receive a subrogation credit equal to the amount of medical benefits and the “total amount of all income benefits” that the employer has paid under the workers’ compensation law of another state.”
United Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Kaelin, 602 S.W.2d 176 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“The issues herein are: (1) whether the circuit court erred in failing to dismiss the employee’s claim as not falling within the extraterritorial provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, KRS 342.670; (2) whether the circuit court erred in directing the Board to make a…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(4) — 2 cases
Davis v. Wilson, 619 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“Wilson claims entitlement to extraterritorial coverage under either subsection (a) or (b) of KRS 342.670(1). The subsections provide coverage to employees for injuries incurred outside Kentucky if: (a) His employment is principally localized in this state, or (b) He is working…”
Eck Miller Transp. Corp. v. Wagers, 833 S.W.2d 854 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
“*856 KRS 342.670 governs the extraterritorial application of Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(4)(d) — 5 cases
Davis v. Wilson, 619 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“Wilson claims entitlement to extraterritorial coverage under either subsection (a) or (b) of KRS 342.670(1). The subsections provide coverage to employees for injuries incurred outside Kentucky if: (a) His employment is principally localized in this state, or (b) He is working…”
Haney v. Butler, 990 S.W.2d 611 (Ky. 1999).
“Because there was no evidence that Alabama law did not apply to the claim, the ALJ concluded that the claim did not come within the jurisdictional requisites of KRS 342.670; therefore, it was dismissed.”
Amax Coal Co. v. Smith, 748 S.W.2d 158 (Ky. Ct. App. 1988).
“The applicable statute for determining whether Kentucky has extraterritorial coverage for this claim is KRS 342.670. Subsections (1) and (a) provided in pertinent part as follows: (1) If an employe, while working outside the territorial limits of this state, suffers an injury on…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(4)(d)(l) — 1 case
Eck Miller Transp. Corp. v. Wagers, 833 S.W.2d 854 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
“*856 KRS 342.670 governs the extraterritorial application of Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(5) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(5)(d) — 4 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(5)(d)(1) — 3 cases
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(l)(a) — 3 cases
Eck Miller Transp. Corp. v. Wagers, 833 S.W.2d 854 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
“*856 KRS 342.670 governs the extraterritorial application of Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Haney v. Butler, 990 S.W.2d 611 (Ky. 1999).
“Because there was no evidence that Alabama law did not apply to the claim, the ALJ concluded that the claim did not come within the jurisdictional requisites of KRS 342.670; therefore, it was dismissed.”
Davis v. Wilson, 619 S.W.2d 709 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“Wilson claims entitlement to extraterritorial coverage under either subsection (a) or (b) of KRS 342.670(1). The subsections provide coverage to employees for injuries incurred outside Kentucky if: (a) His employment is principally localized in this state, or (b) He is working…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 342.670(l)(b) — 9 cases
Haney v. Butler, 990 S.W.2d 611 (Ky. 1999).
“Because there was no evidence that Alabama law did not apply to the claim, the ALJ concluded that the claim did not come within the jurisdictional requisites of KRS 342.670; therefore, it was dismissed.”
Heartland Express v. Gardner, 675 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2004).
“Code § 25-5-35(d)(2) (2000); Ky. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 342.670(l)(b) (Michie 1997); N.”
Eck Miller Transp. Corp. v. Wagers, 833 S.W.2d 854 (Ky. Ct. App. 1992).
“*856 KRS 342.670 governs the extraterritorial application of Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act.”
United Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Kaelin, 602 S.W.2d 176 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
“The issues herein are: (1) whether the circuit court erred in failing to dismiss the employee’s claim as not falling within the extraterritorial provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, KRS 342.670; (2) whether the circuit court erred in directing the Board to make a…”
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.