Revise workers' compensation laws relating to travel and reimbursement
Summary
HB 367 revises Montana workers’ compensation law, with a primary focus on injuries occurring while an employee is traveling for work. The bill states that the mere fact that an employer furnishes transportation or reimburses travel-related costs is not, by itself, determinative of whether an injury is covered. Instead, coverage depends on whether the travel is required by the employer or is otherwise an integral part or condition of the employment. The bill also preserves existing exclusions for injuries occurring during breaks or unpaid social or recreational activities, while clarifying when employer-requested participation in such activities may still be covered.
The bill also restates and organizes several existing workers’ compensation standards, including the requirement that compensable injuries be established by objective medical findings, rules for alcohol- and drug-related accidents, special provisions for marijuana used for a debilitating medical condition, and rules governing occupational diseases and insurer liability. It includes provisions addressing disputes between insurers, subsequent nonwork-related injuries after maximum healing, and liability for pneumoconiosis in coal mine acquisitions. The act applies to claims where the injury or death occurs on or after October 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 367 amends section 39-71-407, MCA, and affects how Montana workers’ compensation claims are evaluated for travel-related injuries, especially in cases involving employer-provided transportation, travel reimbursements, jobsite incentives, and required work travel. It narrows the ability to treat reimbursement alone as proof of coverage and clarifies that coverage turns on the employment relationship of the travel itself. The bill also reinforces existing evidentiary and causation standards for injury, occupational disease, intoxication, and marijuana-related claims, affecting employees, employers, insurers, and the State Fund.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House and Senate with overwhelming margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes, and only one dissenting vote on final Senate passage. The voting history suggests general agreement that the measure was a technical or clarifying update to workers’ compensation law rather than a major policy shift.
Contention
There is little evidence of significant opposition in the available record. The main policy issue reflected in the text is the scope of workers’ compensation coverage for travel-related injuries, particularly whether reimbursement or employer-furnished transportation should automatically establish coverage. The bill resolves that question by saying those facts are not dispositive, which may matter to employers and insurers seeking narrower liability and to employees seeking coverage for work-related travel. The marijuana and drug-testing provisions also preserve existing limits on benefits, but no specific controversy is shown in the provided discussion or vote record.