«THE EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTS BY CLARENCE W. IIOBBS 1. In General. A goodly number of the compensation acts are by their ...»
Compensation act, Sec. 1429 gives remedy under act for injuries sustained outside state, if the workman is hired or is regularly employed in the state. Provision made for enforcement of remedies to which workmen hired outside state may be entitled under compensation act of state of hiring.
Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp'n v. Ind. Com., 257 P. 645.
Holds that intent of act is that law of Arizona shall apply to all injuries sustained in Arizona, the right to compensation being a right of status.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTS 9.75
No compensation act.
Logan v. Missouri Valley Bridge & Iron Co., 249 S. W. 21. An action of tort cannot be maintained in Arkansas when the injury took place in Oklahoma and came within the terms of the compensation act of that state. Remedies provided by that act not enforceable by Arkansas courts.
Magnolia,Petroleum Co. v. Turner, 65 S. W. 2nd 1. Where resident of Arkansas was employed there to do work in Texas, and was injured there, court held it not contrary to public policy to give effect to provision of Texas compensation act, barring an employee from bringing common-law action against insured employer.
Standard Pipe Line Co. v. Bennett, 66 S. W. 2nd 637. Where Arkansas resident is hired by Louisiana corporation to do work in Arkansas, and contract stipulates that injuries shall be settled under the Louisiana compensation act, that stipulation is contrary to the public policy of Arkansas, and is void.
Smith v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 86 S. W. 2nd 411. Question of proper parties to third party suit for injury in Arkansas by Employee who had received compensation under Tennessee Act.
Compensation act, Sec. 58. Gives remedy for extra-territorlal injuries in cases where employee is resident of state at time of injury, and contract of hire was made in state.
Act not originally extra-territorial.
North Alaska Salmon Co. v. Pillsbury, 162 P. 93.
Kruse v. Pillsbury, 162 P. 891.
Validity of extra-territorial provision sustained, but limitation as to residence declared void.
Quong Ham Wah v. Ind. Acc. Com., 192 P. 1021.
Stipulation in contract of hire made in California for seasonal work to be performed wholly in Alaska, that Alaska compensation act should apply to injuries, held void as contrary to provision of act forbidding agreements to forego remedies provided by act.
Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Ind. Acc. Com., 34 P. 2nd 716, 294 U. S. 532.
Contract made in California for performance of services in Utah on railroad construction work held governed by California law as to injuries sustained outside state, the court finding that employee was not engaged in interstate commerce.
Los Angeles & S. L. R. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com., 43 P.
276 EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTSCalifornia law not applicable where contract of hire is made and performed and injury sustained on military reservation of United States.
Allan v. Ind. Ace. Com., 43 P. 2nd 787.
Compensation act not extra-territorial in terms.
Held, that where contract of hire is made in Colorado, to work in Colorado and elsewhere, the Colorado act applies to an injury sustained outside state.
Ind. Com. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 174 P. 589.
Home Ins. Co. v. Hipp, 15 P. 2nd 1082.
But act does not apply if contract is for services entirely outside Colorado.
Platt v. Reynolds, 282 P. 264.
Tripp v. Ind. Com., 4 P. 2nd 917.
Where contract of hire is made outside state, and services are not to be performed principally in Colorado, Colorado act does not apply to injury sustained in Colorado.
Hall v. Ind. Com., 235 P. 1073.
Under provisions of sec. 5223 the term "employee" includes one who has entered into or works under a contract of service "whether such contract contemplated the performance of duties within or without the state."
The act has been held to apply to extra-territorial injuries, where contract of employment is made in Connecticut.
Kennerson v. Thames Towboat Co., 94 A. 372.
Harlvel v. Hall-Thompson Co., 120 A. 603.
Petitti v. T. J. Pardy Const. Co., 130 A. 70.
This has been held true, even though the contract of employment was made before the taking effect of the compensation act, and the employee was a non-resident when act took effect.
Falvey v. Sprague Meter Co., 151 A. 182.
Conversely, the application of the act to intra-territorial injuries is affected by the law of the place where the contract is made.
Thus, where the contract is made in a state whose law is not extraterritorial, and the parties have accepted the Connecticut act, the Connecticut act applies.
Douthright v. Champlin 100 A. 97.
Where the contract is made in a state whose act is extra-territorial, the Connecticut act applies if the contract is for services in Connecticut.
Banks v. Albert P. Howlett Co., 102 A. 822.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTSBut it does not apply if the services are not to be performed exclusively in Connecticut.
Hopkins v. Matchless Metal Polish Co., 121 A. 828.
Where an employer separately insured its employees in Connecticut and in Vermont, an injury in Vermont to an employee hired in Connecticut was held to come under the Vermont policy rather than the Connecticut policy, even though the Vermont policy did not, contemplate coverage under the Connecticut law.
Miller Bros. Const. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 155 A. 709.
This last case is rather hard to reconcile with the others.
Under Sec. 3193a of the compensation act it is definitely provided that the act applies to all injuries within the state, irrespective of where contract of hire is made, and that it does not apply to any accident occurring outside the state.
10. District of Columbia.
P. A. No. 419, 70th Congress, Sec. 1. Provides that the act applies to injury or death of an employee of an employer carrying on any employment in the District of Columbia, irrespective of where the injury or death occurs.
This indicates that the act is not extra-terrltorial on the contract theory, but probably on localization theory.
The case of U. S. Casualty Co. v. Hoage, 77 F. 542, declined to apply law of Alabama to injury received in District of Columbia, though contract of employment was made in Alabama.
See. 25c. makes provision for place of hearing in cases where injury occurs outside state.
Sec. 37 of the compensation act gives remedy for extra-territorial injuries (a) if the contract of hire is made in the state (b) and if the employer's place of business is in the state (c) or if the residence of the employee is in the state.
But not if the contract of employment is expressly for services outside the state.
A proviso is added, that if an employee receives compensation or damages under the law of any other state, the above provision shall
9/78 EXTRA-TERRITORIAL A P P L I C A T I O N OF C O M P E N S A T I O N ACTSnot entitle him to a total compensation for the same injury greater than provided by this act.
Extra-territorial application of act sustained.
Empire Glass-Decoratlon Co. v. Bussey, 126 S. E. 912.
Metropolitan Cas. Co. v. Huhn, 142 S. E. 121.
Where agreement for compensation for extra-territorial injury has been entered into, it is too late to move to dismiss the claim on the ground that the contract of employment was not made in Georgia.
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Menees, 167 S. E. 335.
Sec. 7523 of compensation act gives remedy for extra-territorial injuries, if the workman is hired in the territory. Act contains a provision for enforcement of remedies under the compensation laws of any other state to which employees hired under the law of that state may be entitled.
Sec. 6275 of compensation act is same as Hawaii provision quoted above.
Sec. 6219 authorizes employers who hire workmen in state to work outside state to make agreements with such workmen that remedies under act shall be exclusive as to injuries sustained outside state.
Contracts of hire made in state presumed to include such agreement.
Extra-territorial application of act sustained.
Dameron v. Yellowstone Trail Garage, 34 P. 2nd 417.
Sec. 5 of compensation act gives remedy for extra-territorial injuries where contract of hire is made in Illinois.
The act was originally not extra-territorial.
Friedman Mfg. Co. v. Ind. Com., 120 N. E. 460.
Union Bridge & Const. Co. v. Ind. Com., 122 N. E. 609.
Joyce-Watkins Co. v. Ind. Com., 156 N. E. 346.
Extra-territorial feature added by amendment sustained.
Beall Bros. Supply Co. v. Ind. Com., 173 N. E. 64.
Johnston v. Ind. Com., 185 N. E. 191.
Extra-territorial feature of act held to apply to employee of Illinois subsidiary of New York concern, though contract of employment was made in New York. This seems more in accord with localization theory than contract theory.
Kennedy-Van Saun Mfg. Co. v. Ind. Com., 189 N. E. 916.
For subrogation feature of act, see Goldsmith v. Payne, 133 N. E. 52.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTS
Sec. 20 of compensation act indicates that every employer and employee under the act are bound by the provisions thereof whether injury occurs in Indiana or in another state or foreign country.
The early cases followed the contract theory. Thus, the act applies extra-territorially where contract is made in Indiana.
Hagenbeck v. Leppert, 117 N. E. 531.
But not where contract is wholly to be performed in another state.
Leader Specialty Co. v. Chapman, 152 N. E. 872.
Even when both employer and employee are residents of Indiana (here contract was made in Illinois for work in Arkansas).
Bement Oil Co. v. Cubbison, 149 N. E. 919.
Conversely, act covers intra-territorial injuries in cases where the contract is made outside the state, but to be performed exclusively in Indiana.
Hagenbeck & Great Wa|lace 'Show Co. v. Randall, 126 N. E. 501.
Same v. Ball, 126 N. E. 504.
Johns-Manville Inc. v. Thrane, 141 N. E. 229.
But not where services are to be performed elsewhere than in Indiana.
Darsch v. Thearle-Du~ield Fireworks Display Co., 133 N. E. 525.
Norman v. Hartman Furniture & Carpet Co., 150 N. E.
Indiana law held not applicable to contract of employment made in Indiana for work there and in other states, where employee had accepted compensation act of state where accident occurred.
Premier Construction Co. v. Grinstead, 170 N. E. 561.
The later cases appear to stress the fact that the employment is not an Indiana employment. This seems at least a tendency toward localization theory.
Bishop v. International Sugar Feed Co., 162 N. E. 71.
Smith v. Menzies Shoe Co., 188 N. E. 592.
Finkley v. Eugene Saenger Tailoring Shop, 196 N. E. 536.
See. 1440 of act makes provision for hearing in case of extra-territorial injuries.
Act held extra-terrltorlal in case of contracts of employment made in Iowa.
Pierce v. Bekins Van & Storage Co., 172 N. W. 191.
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Lundquist, 221 N. W. 228.
Cullamore v. Groneweg & Schoentgen Co., 257 N. W. 561.
280 EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTSAs to extra-territoral operation of subrogation feature of foreign compensation act, see Hendrickson v. Crandic Stages, 246 N. W. 913.
Section 6 of compensation act indicates that act applies extra-territorially if contract of hire is made in state, unless contract otherwise specifically provides.
Has no extra-terrltorial application where contract of hire is made outside state for work outside state.
Dawes v. Jacob Dold Packing Co., 38 P. 2nd 107.
Sec. 4888 of compensation act provides that remedies of acts are exclusive as to employees hired in state with respect to injuries sustained outside state, unless employer and employees have agreed in writing to exempt such injuries from operation of act.
No provision, but held extra-territorial as to contracts of employment made in state.
Hargis v. McWilliams Co., 119 So. 88.
Durrett v. Eicher-Woodland Lumber Co., 136 So. 112.
Selser v. Bragman's Bluff Lumber Co.
Not extra-territorial, if contract is with out-of-state employer, for work exclusively out of state.
Durrett v. Eicher-Woodland Lumber Co., 140 So. 867.
Abood v. Louisiana Oil Ref'g Corp'n, 155 So. 484.
A beneficiary under Louisiana act does not forfeit exemption from garnishment of benefits by leaving state.
Festervand v. Laster, 130 So. 112.
Sec. 2 II(b) of act provides that employers who hire workmen within state to work outside state may agree with such workmen that remedies of act shall be exclusive as to extra-territorial injuries. Contracts of employment made in state, unless otherwise specified, are presumed to include such agreement.
Extra-territorial application of act sustained as to injury in Canada.
Saunders' Case, 136 A. 722.
Where contract of employment is made outside state, but employer is carrying on work in Maine, and is an assenting emmployer under Maine act, that act applies to injury sustained in Maine.
Smith v. Heine Safety Boiler Co., 112 A. 516.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF COMPENSATION ACTS
Section 32(43) of act indicates that it applies extra-terrltorially to salesmen and sales managers who are citizens or residents of state, employed by an employer having a phice of business within state.
Section 65 (3) of act indicates that it does not apply to employees employed wholly outside state, but that it does apply to casual, occasional or incidental employment outside state by Maryland employer of employee regularly employed within state.