New York NEW HAMPSHIRE The court may grant an order for the payment of a lump sum either on the application of the workman or the employer. § 9. NEW JERSEY 1 All future payments may be commuted by an order of the Court of Common Pleas, but such commutation is not favored. § 2, subd. 21. A sum equal to future payments may be deposited by leave of court and the employer thereafter relieved of liability. § 2, subd. 21 (a). NEW YORK Future payments may be commuted and paid into the State Insurance fund for the benefit of employés or dependents. § 27. 1 In commuting the amount payable the judge should not merely multiply the weekly payment by the number of weeks for which compensation is allowed, but should determine the present value of the weekly payments for the period specified in the statute. James A. Banistar v. Krigh, 36 N. J. Law J. 307; 85 Atl. Rep. 1027. A direction by the Court of Common Pleas that the weekly payments be commuted to a lump-sum, pursuant to paragraph 21 of the New Jersey Workmen's Compensation Act, should be based on specific findings of fact, supported by legal evidence. New York Ship Building Company v. Buchanan, 000 N. J. Law 000; 87 Atl. Rep. 86. A decision commuting payments to a lump-sum under the New Jersey Workmen's Compensation Act should contain the basis of the award in amount per week and number of weeks. Long v. Bergen County Court of Common Pleas, 000 N. J. Law 000; 86 Atl. Rep. 529. A workman who had lost the sight of an eye made a request that the compensation be commuted to a lump-sum for the purpose of buying a cigar, fruit and candy store. It did not appear from the testimony that the workman knew anything about the business or its value and his request for a commutation was based entirely upon the information received from others. Under such circumstances the court refused to make the order for commutation. Dikovich v. American Steel and Wire Co., 36 N. J. Law J. Washington OHIO The Commission "under special circumstances, and when the same is deemed advisable, may commute periodical benefits to one or more lump sum payments." §§ 1465-87; § 40 of the Acts of 1913. While the above provision was intended originally to apply to the State Insurance Fund, apparently it applies to payments from employers who decide to carry their own insurance as well. OREGON Where a beneficiary resides out of the State and has been such non-resident for a period of one year the Commission may commute all future payments to a lump sum. § 21 (k). RHODE ISLAND If payments have been continued for not less than six months either party may apply to a Superior Court for an order commuting future payments to a lump sum. Art. 2. § 25. TEXAS In cases where death or total permanent disability results the future payments may be commuted to a lump sum subject to the approval of the Industrial Accident Board. Part II, § 15. WASHINGTON In case of non-resident beneficiaries, the department may commute the amount due to a lump sum. §5 (j). The department may in any case of death or total disability commute future payments to a lump sum. §7. Wisconsin WEST VIRGINIA The Commission under special circumstances, when the same is deemed advisable, may commute periodical payments to one or more lump payments. § 41. WISCONSIN 1 At any time after six months have elapsed from the date of the injury the Industrial Commission may commute future payments to a lump sum. §§ 2394-9 (5) (e). The husband of the applicant was employed as a track laborer on an electric railway. He fell from a hand car and was killed. He left a widow and five children. The average earnings of the deceased for the preceding year amounted to $642.83. The employer did not deny liability. The applicant asked to have the entire compensation paid in a lump-sum as she desired to return to Italy. The Commission ruled that the sum of $300 be paid to the applicant within ten days and that the sum of $48 per month thereafter be paid until the sum of $2,571.32 was paid. In a memorandum the Commission recognized the desire of the applicant to return to her former home in Italy and agreed that she could live more cheaply there than she could in the United States, as was argued. For that reason a part of the award was directed to be paid in a lump-sum. Anna Lesandro v. Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co., Wis. Indus. Com., Dec. 13, 1912. 1. Character and necessity of such insurance. Under liability insurance policies it has heretofore been a rule of almost universal application that there could be no Under the British Columbia Compensation Act it was held that a workman could not recover from a liability insurance company which had issued a policy to his employer who subsequently became insolvent. Disourdi v. Sullivan Group Mining Co. and Another (1910), 15 B. C. R. 305; 4 B. W. C. C. 462. An injured workman was paid compensation by a company which became insolvent and was wound up. The company was insured against accidents under the Act and on the company ceasing to pay compensation the workman brought proceedings against the insurers. The insurers Character and necessity of such insurance direct recovery by a workman, or the representatives of a deceased employé, against the insurance company. Such policies have been purely indemnity contracts in favor of employers. It was specifically provided therein that no suit would lie thereon except to recover money actually paid by the assured, on a judgment, after a trial of the issues. Most of such policies still so provide, in all cases except in those States where by statute the companies are required to assume a direct liability to those who are injured. When, therefore, an employer becomes insolvent, or bankrupt, and cannot pay a judgment against him, rendered because of the injury or death of an employé, the insurance company has entirely escaped liability. The companies have universally and still do take advantage of such a situation wherever possible. They take the position that they have made no contract with the employé and they are therefore under no obligation to pay him anything. By making it a condition precedent that the employer must actually pay the money before it is liable the insurance company escapes payment. alleged that there was a dispute between them and the workman's employers as to whether the latter had taken precautions against accidents, as required by the policy, and that until this dispute had been settled by arbitration, in accordance with the terms of the policy, the employers could not claim against them and that the workman had no greater rights than his employers had. The contention of the insurers was upheld by the County Court judge and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. King v. Phoenix Assurance Co. (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 442. There must be an admission of liability on the part of the insurer, or a finding by a competent tribunal, before the provisions of § 6 of the British Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act of 1902, as to the payment into court, can be invoked. Disourdi v. Sullivan Group Mining Company and Maryland Casualty Co. (No. 2) (1909), 14 B. C. R. 256; 2 B. W. C. C. 508. In the Supreme Court of British Columbia it was held that any right which the applicant for compensation might have against the employers under §6 of the British Columbia Compensation Act must be decided in an action commenced in the ordinary way and that the rules made under § 6 were ultra vires. Disourdi v. Sullivan Group Mining Co. and Maryland Casualty Co. (No. 3), 14 B. C. R. 273; 2 B. W. C. C. 514. |