Eldridge filed a workers compensation complaint against Meissen, later amending his complaint to include Agar as well as the company that owned the feedlot where the incident took place and the other trucking company that had helped transport the offending load of cattle. Meissen hired counsel to appear before the Workers Compensation Commission (the Commission), as is required by Idaho law. After that counsel withdrew for ethical reasons, Meissen failed to retain alternate counsel and was later found in default by the Commission. 

The Commission turned to the question of whether Agar or the other two named defendant companies could be considered a statutory employer for Eldridge. The question was answered in the negative for both the company that owned the feedlot and the other trucking company. Agar, however, had the brokerage and lease agreements in place with Meissen, as well as "a right to compensation depending on Meissen's success in delivering loads dispatched by Agar." These facts, the Commission said, showed that Agar had made a contract with Meissen for trucking services; since Meissen was Eldridge's employer, the Commission ruled Agar was "[the] category one statutory employer of Eldridge." And Agar, like Meissen, did not have workers compensation coverage. Both entities were held liable for compensation and penalties under Idaho law. Agar appealed the decision, arguing that it could not be considered Eldridge's statutory employer because it was a "transportation broker," and such brokers were not included in the statutory definition of an employer in the Idaho Workers Compensation Code. 

The Supreme Court of Idaho pointed out that Idaho Code §72-102(12) broadly defined an employer as "any person who has expressly or impliedly hired or contracted the services of another." The fact that "transportation brokers" were not listed under the additional inclusions was immaterial. Given the nature of the agreements between Agar and Meissen, the court agreed with the Commission that Agar was indeed Eldridge's statutory employer. Under Idaho Code §72-216, an employer (Agar) is liable for workers compensation benefits to a contractor's injured employee (Eldridge) if the contractor (Meissen) does not have the workers compensation coverage required by Idaho Code §72-301. The court explicitly stated that "Agar's appeal misse[d] the mark[,]" affirmed the decision of the Workers Compensation Commission, and awarded costs to Eldridge.  Editor's Note: This case emphasizes the importance of carrying at least the required minimum for workers compensation insurance. Insurance is expensive, but so are judgments in favor of injured employees. Every state except Texas has minimum requirements for employers to carry workers compensation insurance. The structure and requirements for workers compensation vary by state, so it is imperative to be familiar with your state's rules.