Owners Realty Co. v. Bailey

Bónd, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from a decree in equity, sustaining a demurrer, and dismissing a bill of complaint by an employer to restrain the State Industrial Accident Commission and the widow of a former employee from proceeding to enforce payment by the employer of compensation duly awarded and heretofore paid by an insurer, after that insurer has become insolvent and unable to continue payments. A case on appeal from the award originally made is reported in 153 Md. 274 . It is averred in the bill that the insurance company was in good standing up to the time of the accident by reason of which the compensation became payable, and was approved by the Insurance Commissioner and the State Industrial Accident Commission.

After the payments by the insurer had stopped, the employer was summoned to show cause to the commission, if any it had, why it should not itself carry on the payments previously required; and upon that the bill was filed. Two questions are raised. The one principally argued is whether under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of this State, article 101 of the Code, any liability for the payments required is rested upon an employer who has duly provided insurance as the act requires. Undoubtedly the act in many places contemplates payment only by the insurance carrier when there is insurance.

By section 14, every employer is required to “pay or provide” compensation, and by section ¹⁴³ 15 lie is required to “secure” compensation. RTawhere does the act in explicit terms render the employer liable to pay the compensation or see that it is paid at all events. And in section 58, which allows suit against a third person who may have caused the injury for which compensation has become payable, the employer mentioned as given the right to sue is specified as one who may sue: “if he is self-insured”; and it is argued that this is a limitation consistent only with a restriction of individual liability for compensation to such employers as are self-insured. Furthermore, it is pointed out that it was the purpose of the act to-secure, by utilizing the aid of insurance, the payment of rates of compensation which would be beyond the abilities of some employers of small means if they should be required to pay directly; and from this, too, it is argued that freedom of insured employers from liability to pay directly must be intended.

But the