## Facts

- Timothy D. Walters, an employee of Flathead Concrete Products, Inc. (FCP), was run over and crushed by an FCP forklift while working and died the same day.
- Timothy was 42, unmarried, and had no children; he lived with his mother, Carol A. Walters, but she did not qualify as his “dependent” under the applicable statutory definition.
- FCP had workers’ compensation coverage through the Montana Contractor Compensation Fund, which paid Timothy’s medical expenses, burial expenses (up to the statutory cap), and a $3,000 lump-sum death benefit to Walters as a nondependent parent.
- Walters, individually and as personal representative of Timothy’s estate, sued FCP asserting survivorship and wrongful-death claims based on allegedly negligent and intentional conduct.
- FCP sought summary judgment, asserting the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) provided the exclusive remedy; Walters cross-moved, arguing the exclusive-remedy provision and the nondependent-parent death benefit were unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether the WCA’s exclusive-remedy provision barred the estate’s survivorship and wrongful-death claims against a covered employer.
2. Whether the exclusive-remedy provision and the $3,000 nondependent-parent death benefit violate the Montana Constitution’s quid pro quo basis for workers’ compensation.
3. Whether the statutes violate equal protection and/or substantive due process by differentiating between dependent and nondependent survivors and limiting benefits for nondependent parents.
4. Whether the intentional-injury exception removed the case from the exclusive-remedy bar.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for FCP.
- The court held the WCA’s exclusive-remedy provision barred Walters’ tort-based survivorship and wrongful-death claims because FCP had secured workers’ compensation coverage and no statutory exception applied.
- The court rejected the constitutional challenges to the exclusive-remedy provision and the nondependent-parent death benefit.
- The court found the record did not support application of the intentional-injury exception.

## Legal Principles

- When an employer secures workers’ compensation coverage, the WCA generally provides the exclusive remedy for work-related injury or death, subject only to narrow statutory exceptions.
- The constitutionality of the workers’ compensation quid pro quo is evaluated at the level of the overall statutory scheme, not by comparing benefits and tort recoveries in a particular case.
- Statutes are presumed constitutional; the challenger bears the burden to prove unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Differentiating benefits between dependent and nondependent survivors is rationally related to legitimate objectives, including wage-replacement policy and cost control, and does not violate equal protection or due process absent a showing of constitutional infirmity.
- The intentional-injury exception requires proof of the statutorily required level of deliberate intent; a workplace accident, without more, does not satisfy that standard.

## Conclusion

Because FCP maintained workers’ compensation coverage and Walters failed to establish a statutory exception or constitutional defect, the WCA barred the survivorship and wrongful-death claims, and the challenged provisions—including the $3,000 nondependent-parent death benefit—were upheld.


Walters v. Flathead Concrete Prods., Inc., 249 P.3d 913 (Mont. 2011)