In Montana, workers’ compensation is generally an employee’s exclusive remedy against a covered employer for a work-related injury. But it does not bar every lawsuit: an injured worker may have a claim against a qualifying third party, a narrow claim for an injury specifically intended by an employer or fellow employee, or additional remedies if the employer was uninsured. Which route may apply depends on the employer’s coverage, the defendant’s relationship to the employer, and the facts behind the injury.
This overview is based on the 2025 Montana Code Annotated provisions and Montana Supreme Court decisions identified below, checked October 3, 2026. It is general legal information, not a decision about an individual claim.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
What does “exclusive remedy” mean in Montana?
Montana Code Annotated (MCA) § 39-71-411 establishes the baseline: for employment covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act, or for which coverage was elected, the Act generally provides the exclusive remedy against the employer for an employee’s covered injury or death. Subject to exceptions in the Act, the employer is not liable in a separate civil action for that injury or death.
Recommended Free Tools
The rule is not an absolute ban on lawsuits. The statute recognizes exceptions, including Part 5’s provisions for uninsured employers, and other statutes preserve particular claims. Section 39-71-411 also bars specified third-party claims for contribution or indemnity against an employer; that restriction is distinct from an injured worker’s potential claim against a third party.
#1 Best Overall
Which legal path might apply?
| Situation | Potential route | Key qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Covered or elected employment; claim against the employer for a covered injury | Workers’ compensation is generally the exclusive remedy against the employer under MCA § 39-71-411. | Statutory exceptions may apply, including the specific-intent route in § 39-71-413. |
| A person or corporation outside the employer and its servants or employees caused the injury | A worker or beneficiary may pursue an available damages claim under § 39-71-412, while compensation and medical benefits are not lost merely because a third party caused the injury. | The defendant must qualify as a third party under the statute; it excludes the employer and its servants or employees. |
| An employer or fellow employee intentionally caused the injury | A damages action in addition to compensation may be available under § 39-71-413. | The statute requires specific intent and actual knowledge that injury is certain, proved by clear and convincing evidence. |
| The worker was employed by an uninsured employer | Part 5 provides listed remedies that may be pursued concurrently, including fund benefits and specified civil actions. | Whether the employer was uninsured for the claim is a legal and factual question; later insurer insolvency does not automatically establish uninsured status. |
Can a worker sue a third party and still receive compensation?
Potentially. Under MCA § 39-71-412, compensation and medical benefits are not lost merely because someone else caused the workplace injury. The employee or, in a death case, beneficiaries may also prosecute a damages cause of action against a qualifying person or corporation other than the employer or its servants or employees.
The identity and legal relationship of the defendant matter. A contractor, property owner, equipment maker, or other actor should not automatically be treated as a third party—or as part of the employer—without examining the facts and applicable law. Section 39-71-412 establishes the potential route, but does not by itself explain how any benefits, liens, or recovery may interact.
When does an intentional-injury claim qualify?
MCA § 39-71-413 permits a damages claim in addition to compensation when an employee is intentionally injured by an intentional and deliberate act of the employer or a fellow employee acting in the duties of employment. The statute requires clear and convincing evidence.
The statute requires specific intent, not just a deliberate act
Section 39-71-413(3) defines “intentional injury” as an injury caused by an intentional and deliberate act “specifically and actually intended to cause injury to the employee injured” where there is “actual knowledge that an injury is certain to occur.” The inquiry is therefore not simply whether someone deliberately took an unsafe action or knew that an accident was possible. The statutory definition sets a substantially narrower threshold: specific intent to injure the particular employee and actual knowledge that injury is certain.
Rank #3
- Used Book in Good Condition
The statute also says an employer is not vicariously liable under this section for an employee’s intentional and deliberate act. A claim involving a coworker’s conduct therefore requires attention to the actor and the employer’s potential liability under the statute, not just the fact that the conduct happened at work.
Negligent safety failures do not meet that test by themselves
In Wise v. L.H.C., Inc., 2006 MT 67, the Montana Supreme Court applied the amended statutory definition and affirmed dismissal of allegations that an employer negligently failed to provide a safe workplace and comply with safety requirements. Calling negligence “intentional and deliberate” did not make it a claim for an injury specifically intended under § 39-71-413.
Rank #4
Wise also explains why older descriptions based on Sherner’s pre-amendment “malice” approach should not be substituted for the current statutory test. The Legislature amended the law in 2001, replacing “malicious” with “deliberate” and defining intentional injury by specific intent.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWhat changes if the employer was uninsured?
Part 5 creates a different set of options. Under MCA § 39-71-508, an employee injured in the course and scope of employment while working for an uninsured employer—or the employee’s beneficiaries in a death case—may pursue the listed remedies concurrently. They include a claim for Uninsured Employers’ Fund benefits, a damages action under § 39-71-509, an independent action under § 39-71-515, and other civil remedies identified by the statute.
Best Value
In the damages action under § 39-71-509, certain defenses are unavailable: specified employee negligence (unless the negligence was willful), negligence by a fellow employee, and assumption of specified employment risks. The statute’s wording and the particular remedy matter; these rules should not be generalized to every workers’ compensation case.
A later insurer insolvency does not automatically make an employer uninsured
In Asurion Services, LLC v. Montana Insurance Guaranty Association, 2017 MT 140, the Montana Supreme Court held that the employer did not become uninsured for the claims at issue merely because its insurer later became insolvent. The employer had secured Plan 2 coverage, and the employee claims had been made and accepted before the insolvency. The Court also applied § 39-71-411 to the third-party contribution and indemnity claim before it.
Asurion addressed those claims and also considered an independent reimbursement statute. It should not be read as resolving materially different claims or every dispute involving an insurer’s insolvency.
What facts need to be checked in an individual case?
- Whether the employment and injury were covered by the Act, or whether coverage was elected.
- Whether the employer was uninsured for the claim, rather than facing a later insurer insolvency after coverage had been secured.
- Whether the proposed defendant is the employer, a fellow employee, or a genuinely separate third party.
- For a § 39-71-413 claim, whether the evidence can meet the specific-intent definition and clear-and-convincing standard.
- Which remedies, damages, deadlines, and rules governing benefits or third-party recoveries apply to the particular claim.
The cited statutes and decisions do not resolve those case-specific questions on their own. A Montana lawyer can assess how current law applies to the facts and parties involved.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
