LaFOREST v. RONALD LeLAND E.K. WI

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: January 20, 1977
• Docket: 13284
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 13284 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977

JOSEPH E. LAFOREST, Plaintiff and Appellant,

RONALD LELAND AND COMPANY and E. K. WILLIAMS COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District Honorable Arnold H. Olsen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gregory J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Greenwood and Petaja, Helena, Montana Nicholas C. Jacques argued, Helena, Montana

Submitted: January 11, 1977

~ecided: JAN 2 0 1977 Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .

T h i s i s a n a c t i o n f o r damages r e s u l t i n g from a n a l l e g e d f a i l u r e of d e f e n d a n t s t o p r o c u r e w o r k e r ' s compensation c o v e r a g e

f o r t h e operation of p l a i n t i f f ' s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n Butte,

S i l v e r Bow County, Montana. From a n o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t , S i l v e r Bow County, t r a n s f e r r i n g venue t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , L e w i s and C l a r k County, Montana, p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s .

The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s t h a t i n F e b r u a r y , 1972, d e f e n d a n t Roland LeLand and Company e n t e r e d i n t o a n o r a l c o n t r a c t w i t h

p l a i n t i f f t o p r o c u r e w o r k e r ' s compensation c o v e r a g e f o r t h e

o p e r a t i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n i n B u t t e , S i l v e r Bow

County, Montana. The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e s b o t h b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t and n e g l i g e n c e by d e f e n d a n t i n f a i l i n g t o p r o c u r e t h e c o v e r a g e .

P l a i n t i f f was s u b s e q u e n t l y i n j u r e d i n a n i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t . The c o m p l a i n t s e e k s damages i n t h e amount o f workmen's compensa-

t i o n b e n e f i t s t o which p l a i n t i f f would have been e n t i t l e d had

c o v e r a g e been p r o c u r e d .

The p l a c e o f performance w a s n o t e x p r e s s e d i n t h e o r a l contract. A d i s p u t e e x i s t s c o n c e r n i n g whether t h e p l a c e of

c o n t r a c t i n g w a s i n B u t t e , S i l v e r Bow County, o r Helena, L e w i s

and C l a r k County. P l a i n t i f f r e s i d e s and o p e r a t e s h i s s e r v i c e

s t a t i o n i n B u t t e , S i l v e r Bow County. The p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f

b u s i n e s s of d e f e n d a n t Roland LeLand and Company i s i n Helena,

L e w i s and C l a r k County, and i t s p r e s i d e n t Roland LeLand r e s i d e s

there.

W e h o l d t h a t t h e p l a c e of performance of t h e c o n t r a c t

c o n t r o l s venue i n t h i s c a s e . S e c t i o n 93-2904, R.C.M. 1947. Ab- s e n t t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o n t r a c t , t h e r e i s no n e g l i g e n c e , no c l a i m f o r r e l i e f , and no l a w s u i t . The gravamen of t h e c o m p l a i n t i s f a i l -

u r e t o p r o c u r e t h e c o v e r a g e as a g r e e d . By n e c e s s a r y i m p l i c a t i o n ,

t h e c o v e r a g e was t o be p r o c u r e d by d e f e n d a n t a t i t s p l a c e o f business in Lewis and Clark County. The place of performance exception applies to contracts where the place of performance is indicated by necessary implication. McGregor v. Svare, 151 Mont. 520, 445 P.2d 571 and cases cited therein. Judgment affirmed.

Justice We concuj?:

Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in this case.