39-71-411. Provisions of chapter exclusive remedy -- nonliability of insured employer. For all employments covered under the Workers' Compensation Act or for which an election has been made for coverage under this chapter, the provisions of this chapter are exclusive. Except as provided in part 5 of this chapter for uninsured employers and except as otherwise provided in the Workers' Compensation Act, an employer is not subject to any liability whatever for the death of or personal injury to an employee covered by the Workers' Compensation Act or for any claims for contribution or indemnity asserted by a third person from whom damages are sought on account of the injuries or death. The Workers' Compensation Act binds the employee and, in case of death, binds the employee's personal representative and all persons having any right or claim to compensation for the employee's injury or death, as well as the employer and the servants and employees of the employer and those conducting the employer's business during liquidation, bankruptcy, or insolvency.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 39-71-411 (2026)
Provisions Of Chapter Exclusive Remedy -- Nonliability Of Insured Employer
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 39. LABOR
CHAPTER 71. WORKERS' COMPENSATION
Part 4. Coverage, Liability, and Subrogation
Provisions Of Chapter Exclusive Remedy -- Nonliability Of Insured Employer
History: En. 92-204.1 by Sec. 1, Ch. 493, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 550, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 92-204.1(part); amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 329, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 61, Ch. 397, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1543, Ch. 56, L. 2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2022 · leading case: Raisler v. Burlington N. R.R., 717 P.2d 535 (Mont. 1985).
Raisler v. Burlington N. R.R., 717 P.2d 535 (Mont. 1985). “When an injured employee sues a third party for damages and the third party joins the employer as a third party defendant seeking contribution or indemnity, is the assertion of § 39-71-411, MCA, by the third party defendant employer as a defense, unconstitutional as it is…”
Walters v. Flathead Concrete Prods., Inc., 2011 MT 45 (Mont. 2011). “(FCP), on the grounds that § 39-71-411, MCA, the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (WCA or Act), bars Carol Walters' (Walters) survivorship and wrongful death claims against FCP arising from the work-related death of her son, Timothy Walters (Tim).”
Stratemeyer v. Lincoln Cnty., 915 P.2d 175 (Mont. 1996). “Except as provided in part 5 of this chapter for uninsured employers and except as otherwise provided in the Workers' Compensation Act, an employer is not subject to any liability whatever for the death of or personal injury to an employee covered by the Workers' Compensation…”
Maney v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 2000 MT 366 (Mont. 2000). “Section 39-71-411, MCA. ¶ 12 Cheff argued in the District Court that Maney's claims were barred by § 39-71-411, MCA, because they were based on Fogleson's personal injury and death.”
Cordier v. Stetson-Ross, Inc., 604 P.2d 86 (Mont. 1979). “1947, now section 39-71-411, MCA, the "employer is not subject to any liability whatever " (emphasis added) to an injured employee except under the Act.”
Kleinhesselink v. Chevron, U.S.A., 920 P.2d 108 (Mont. 1996). “Chevron based its motion to dismiss solely on the exclusivity clause of the Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), § 39-71-411, MCA, arguing that "Montana law clearly holds that Kleinhesselink cannot maintain negligence claims against his employer if his employer has secured…”
Hubbel v. W. Fire Ins., 706 P.2d 111 (Mont. 1985). “I LEGAL ENTITLEMENT TO DAMAGES Section 39-71-411, MCA, provides that when an employer has elected to be covered under the Workers' Compensation Act, that Act provides the exclusive remedy available to employees for the negligent acts of their employer.”
Sherner v. Conoco, Inc., 2000 MT 50 (Mont. 2000). “¶ 11 I What standard should be used to determine whether an employers act or omission is "intentional and malicious," thereby allowing an injured worker to bring a tort action against his employer under § 39-71-413, MCA? *994 ¶ 12 Sherner claims that the District Court erred…”
McKinnon v. W. Sugar Coop. Corp., 2010 MT 24 (Mont. 2010). “24(d) when it dismissed McKinnon's constitutional challenge? FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶ 5 A railcar traumatically amputated both of McKinnon's legs while he was working for Western Sugar Cooperative Corporation (Western Sugar) on February 15, 2005. McKinnon received…”
Sitzman v. Schumaker, 718 P.2d 657 (Mont. 1986). “Upon stipulation of the parties, the Sitzmans’ actions were consolidated for purpose of appeal. The issue presented for review by Sitzmans is whether receipt of Workers’ Compensation benefits by them results in an election pursuant to Section 39-71-411, MCA, thereby barring them…”
Hayes v. Aetna Fire Underwriters, 609 P.2d 257 (Mont. 1980). “1947, (now section 39-71-411, MCA) the Workers' Compensation Court has jurisdiction to try willful torts not arising out of the actual employment or that the pleading was such that it did not state a claim in any court.”
Alexander v. Bozeman Motors, Inc., 2010 MT 135 (Mont. 2010). “Section 39-71-411, MCA. An employee may bring an action against an employer or fellow employee, however, "[i]f an employee is intentionally injured by an intentional and deliberate act of the employee's employer or by the intentional and deliberate act of a fellow employee.”
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.