Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 39. LABOR · CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION · Part 1. General Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117 (2026)

Employer Defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 39
  3. CHAPTER 71
  4. Part 1
  5. 39-71-117 Employer defined

TITLE 39. LABOR

CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Part 1. General Provisions

Employer Defined

39-71-117. Employer defined. (1) "Employer" means:

(a) the state and each county, city and county, city school district, and irrigation district; all other districts established by law; all public corporations and quasi-public corporations and public agencies; each person; each prime contractor; each firm, voluntary association, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, and private corporation, including any public service corporation and including an independent contractor who has a person in service under an appointment or contract of hire, expressed or implied, oral or written; and the legal representative of any deceased employer or the receiver or trustee of the deceased employer;

(b) any association, corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or organization that seeks permission and meets the requirements set by the department by rule for a group of individual employers to operate as self-insured under plan No. 1 of this chapter;

(c) any nonprofit association, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation or other entity funded in whole or in part by federal, state, or local government funds that places community service participants, as described in 39-71-118(1)(e), with nonprofit organizations or associations or federal, state, or local government entities;

(d) subject to subsection (5), a religious corporation, religious organization, or religious trust receiving remuneration from nonmembers for:

(i) manufacturing or construction activities conducted by its members on or off the property owned or leased by the religious corporation, religious organization, or religious trust; or

(ii) agricultural labor and services performed off the property owned or leased by the religious corporation, religious organization, or religious trust; and

(e) an approved and authorized fiduciary, agent, or other person acting as fiscal agent under section 3504 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 3504, and 26 CFR 31.3504-1.

(2) A temporary service contractor is the employer of a temporary worker for premium and loss experience purposes.

(3) Except as provided in chapter 8 of this title, an employer defined in subsection (1) who uses the services of a worker furnished by another person, association, contractor, firm, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation, other than a temporary service contractor, is presumed to be the employer for workers' compensation premium and loss experience purposes for work performed by the worker. The presumption may be rebutted by substantial credible evidence that

the person, association, contractor, firm, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation, other than a temporary service contractor, furnishing the services of a worker to another retains control over all aspects of the work performed by the worker, both at the inception of employment and during all phases of the work.

(4) An interstate or intrastate common or contract motor carrier that maintains a place of business in this state and uses an employee or worker in this state is considered the employer of that employee, is liable for workers' compensation premiums, and is subject to loss experience rating in this state unless:

(a) the worker in this state is certified as an independent contractor as provided in 39-71-417; or

(b) the person, association, contractor, firm, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation furnishing employees or workers in this state to a motor carrier has obtained Montana workers' compensation insurance on the employees or workers in Montana both at the inception of employment and during all phases of the work performed.

(5) The definition of "employer" in subsection (1)(d) is limited to implementing the administrative purposes of this chapter and may not be interpreted or construed to create an employment relationship in any other context.

(6) (a) A fiscal agent that qualifies under subsection (1)(e) and that is designated as a payor, using federal, state, or local government funds, under 26 CFR 31.3504-1 is considered to be the employer for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act of those workers for whom the fiscal agent is making payments.

(b) The client of the fiscal agent, despite exercising control over the hiring, scheduling, and direction of the work tasks performed by the worker, is not the employer of that worker for the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act.

History: En. 92-410.1 by Sec. 1, Ch. 154, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 92-410.1(part); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 480, L. 1985; amd. Sec. 64, Ch. 613, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 323, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 813, L. 1991; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 458, L. 1993; amd. Sec. 29, Ch. 308, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 18, Ch. 344, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 516, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 172, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 214, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 448, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 112, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 364, L. 2015; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 89, L. 2017; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 282, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Geiger v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2002 MT 332 (Mont. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Geiger v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2002 MT 332 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 46× “¶ 17 Two subsections of § 39-71-117, MCA, defining "employer" apply to the case at bar.”
Total Mech. Heating & Air Conditioning v. Emp. RELATIONS Div., 2002 MT 55 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 19× “In this case, both in accordance with the presumption and the statutory definition of “employer” in § 39-71-117, MCA (1993), the UEF established that the Client Companies and not Dynamics were the legal “employers,” and as such were legally responsible for providing workers’…”
Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2012 MT 320 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 79× “The Department based this determination on the fact that the Colony did not fall within the definition of “employer” set forth at § 39-71-117, MCA, and that the Colony’s members did not fall within the definition of “employee” set forth at § 39-71-118, MCA.”
Buckman v. Montana Deaconess Hosp., 730 P.2d 380 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 6× “We have construed the two contract clauses interchangeably, and have cited United States Supreme Court opinions to test the validity of Montana legislation under both contract clauses.”
Colmore v. Uninsured Employers Fun, 2005 MT 239 (Mont. 2005). · cites it 4× “” Colmore does not dispute on appeal that he is an employer as defined by § 39-71-117, MCA (1999), and that Forgey was his employee as defined by § 39-71-118, MCA (1999).”
Shannon v. Howard S. Wright Const. Co., 593 P.2d 438 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 3× “1947, now section 39-71-117 MCA: “ ‘Employer’ means the state and each county, city and county, city school district, irrigation district, all other districts established by law and all public corporations and quasi-public corporations and public agencies therein and every…”
Schimmel v. Montana Uninsured Employers Fund, 2001 MT 280 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 6× “Jasper Express used a Montana resident driver to pick up and drop off numerous loads in Montana.”
Clarke v. Massey, 897 P.2d 1085 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 2× “First he contends that reading §§ 39-71-117, MCA, 39-71-401, MCA, and 39-71-611, MCA, together leads to the conclusion that Massey was an employer; that he was, therefore, required by law to carry workers’ compensation insurance under one of three plans; and that, since he did…”
Dahl v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 1999 MT 168 (Mont. 1999). · cites it 6× “" Section 39-71-117(2), MCA (1993), provides that "[a]temporary service contractor is the employer of a temporary worker for premium and loss experience purposes.”
Phillips v. City of Whitefish, 2014 MT 186 (Mont. 2014). · cites it 4× “§ 39-71-117(1)(d), MCA, which revised the Workers Compensation Act definitions of “employer” so as to bring within the umbrella of the Act “a religious corporation, religious organization, or religious trust receiving remuneration from nonmembers for agricultural production,…”
Glaude v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 894 P.2d 940 (Mont. 1995). · cites it 18× “Glaude contends that § 39-71-405(1), MCA, read in conjunction with § 39-71-117(4), MCA, extends Rangitsch’s coverage to Glaude.”
Carlson v. Cain, 664 P.2d 913 (Mont. 1983). “Under these circumstances an implicit agreement to pay may be and properly was inferred in the absence of an express agreement on payment.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(1) — 1 case
Geiger v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2002 MT 332 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 17 Two subsections of § 39-71-117, MCA, defining "employer" apply to the case at bar.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(1)(a) — 3 cases
Total Mech. Heating & Air Conditioning v. Emp. RELATIONS Div., 2002 MT 55 (Mont. 2002). “In this case, both in accordance with the presumption and the statutory definition of “employer” in § 39-71-117, MCA (1993), the UEF established that the Client Companies and not Dynamics were the legal “employers,” and as such were legally responsible for providing workers’…”
Geiger v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2002 MT 332 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 17 Two subsections of § 39-71-117, MCA, defining "employer" apply to the case at bar.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Triple L, Inc. (D. Mont. 2022).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(1)(d) — 2 cases
Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2012 MT 320 (Mont. 2012). “The Department based this determination on the fact that the Colony did not fall within the definition of “employer” set forth at § 39-71-117, MCA, and that the Colony’s members did not fall within the definition of “employee” set forth at § 39-71-118, MCA.”
Phillips v. City of Whitefish, 2014 MT 186 (Mont. 2014). “§ 39-71-117(1)(d), MCA, which revised the Workers Compensation Act definitions of “employer” so as to bring within the umbrella of the Act “a religious corporation, religious organization, or religious trust receiving remuneration from nonmembers for agricultural production,…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(2) — 2 cases
Dahl v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 1999 MT 168 (Mont. 1999). “" Section 39-71-117(2), MCA (1993), provides that "[a]temporary service contractor is the employer of a temporary worker for premium and loss experience purposes.”
C. Loney Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Emp. Relations Div., 1998 MT 230 (Mont. 1998).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(3) — 3 cases
Total Mech. Heating & Air Conditioning v. Emp. RELATIONS Div., 2002 MT 55 (Mont. 2002). “In this case, both in accordance with the presumption and the statutory definition of “employer” in § 39-71-117, MCA (1993), the UEF established that the Client Companies and not Dynamics were the legal “employers,” and as such were legally responsible for providing workers’…”
Schimmel v. Montana Uninsured Employers Fund, 2001 MT 280 (Mont. 2001). “Jasper Express used a Montana resident driver to pick up and drop off numerous loads in Montana.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Triple L, Inc. (D. Mont. 2022).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(3)(a) — 1 case
Total Mech. Heating & Air Conditioning v. Emp. RELATIONS Div., 2002 MT 55 (Mont. 2002). “In this case, both in accordance with the presumption and the statutory definition of “employer” in § 39-71-117, MCA (1993), the UEF established that the Client Companies and not Dynamics were the legal “employers,” and as such were legally responsible for providing workers’…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(3)(b) — 1 case
Total Mech. Heating & Air Conditioning v. Emp. RELATIONS Div., 2002 MT 55 (Mont. 2002). “In this case, both in accordance with the presumption and the statutory definition of “employer” in § 39-71-117, MCA (1993), the UEF established that the Client Companies and not Dynamics were the legal “employers,” and as such were legally responsible for providing workers’…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(4) — 3 cases
Geiger v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2002 MT 332 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 17 Two subsections of § 39-71-117, MCA, defining "employer" apply to the case at bar.”
Glaude v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 894 P.2d 940 (Mont. 1995). “Glaude contends that § 39-71-405(1), MCA, read in conjunction with § 39-71-117(4), MCA, extends Rangitsch’s coverage to Glaude.”
Schimmel v. Montana Uninsured Employers Fund, 2001 MT 280 (Mont. 2001). “Jasper Express used a Montana resident driver to pick up and drop off numerous loads in Montana.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(4)(a) — 1 case
Glaude v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 894 P.2d 940 (Mont. 1995). “Glaude contends that § 39-71-405(1), MCA, read in conjunction with § 39-71-117(4), MCA, extends Rangitsch’s coverage to Glaude.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(a) — 1 case
Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2012 MT 320 (Mont. 2012). “The Department based this determination on the fact that the Colony did not fall within the definition of “employer” set forth at § 39-71-117, MCA, and that the Colony’s members did not fall within the definition of “employee” set forth at § 39-71-118, MCA.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(c) — 1 case
Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2012 MT 320 (Mont. 2012). “The Department based this determination on the fact that the Colony did not fall within the definition of “employer” set forth at § 39-71-117, MCA, and that the Colony’s members did not fall within the definition of “employee” set forth at § 39-71-118, MCA.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(l)(a) — 3 cases
Geiger v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2002 MT 332 (Mont. 2002). “¶ 17 Two subsections of § 39-71-117, MCA, defining "employer" apply to the case at bar.”
Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2012 MT 320 (Mont. 2012). “The Department based this determination on the fact that the Colony did not fall within the definition of “employer” set forth at § 39-71-117, MCA, and that the Colony’s members did not fall within the definition of “employee” set forth at § 39-71-118, MCA.”
Hopkins v. Uninsured Employers' Fund, 2011 MT 49 (Mont. 2011).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-117(l)(d) — 2 cases
Big Sky Colony, Inc. v. Montana Dep't of Labor & Indus., 2012 MT 320 (Mont. 2012). “The Department based this determination on the fact that the Colony did not fall within the definition of “employer” set forth at § 39-71-117, MCA, and that the Colony’s members did not fall within the definition of “employee” set forth at § 39-71-118, MCA.”
Phillips v. City of Whitefish, 2014 MT 186 (Mont. 2014). “§ 39-71-117(1)(d), MCA, which revised the Workers Compensation Act definitions of “employer” so as to bring within the umbrella of the Act “a religious corporation, religious organization, or religious trust receiving remuneration from nonmembers for agricultural production,…”
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.