Heller v. International Transport, Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 10533,10533 |
| Citation | 481 P.2d 602,94 Idaho 91 |
| Parties | Edward H. HELLER, Claimant-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT, INC., and Department of Employment, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Edward H. Heller, pro se.
Pope, Ballard, Kennedy, Shepard & Fowle, Chicago, Ill., for respondent, International Transport, Inc.
R. LaVar Marsh, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent, Dept. of Employment.
Claimant Edward Heller filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department of Employment of the State of Idaho, and pursued his claim through a hearing by an appeals examiner of the Department. The claim was denied on the grounds that the services claimant performed for his employer were not within the statutory term 'covered employment' as set out in Idaho Code § 72-1316(e). Claimant appealed this decision to the Industrial Accident Board, which affirmed the decision of the appeals examiner of the Department of Employment. Claimant has appealed that decision to this Court.
Claimant owned his own truck-tractor, and by contract with International Transport, Inc., (employer), which was entered into at International's headquarters in Minnesota, he pulled International's loaded trailers from place to place. Although claimant resided in Idaho, he testified that only approximately five per cent of his hauls originated in Idaho and approximately three per cent terminated in Idaho. Whenever claimant delivered a loaded trailer, he would contact the dispatcher at the Minnesota headquarters of International who would issue claimant instructions as to where he was to pick up his next load. Claimant testified hauls had originated and terminated in Minnesota, and that he also picked up and delivered loads all over the United States. He serviced his tractor wherever the need arose. International maintained no offices or terminals in Idaho, but claimant returned to Idaho after performing his services for International.
I.C. § 72-1316(e), provides:
Claimant contends that though his services for International were not performed entirely within the state, they met the requirements of I.C. § 72-1316(e)(1) and (3)(B) and therefore qualify as covered employment. These subsections require that the out of state services be 'incidental' to the services performed within the state to qualify. 'Incidental' services are further defined in subsection (3)(B) as those of a temporary or transitory nature, or isolated transactions. Claimant urges that the services performed outside Idaho fit within these definitional limits of 'incidental' services. We cannot agree. The primary focus of the subsection in question is upon the incidental nature of the services performed outside of the state. 'Incidental' has been previously defined by this Court, in a very similar context, as meaning "something that is only an adjunct junct or incidental' to something else, which something else is evidently the principal thing to which the other is 'incidental." 1 Incidental is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as:
'Depending upon or appertaining to something else as primary, something necessary, appertaining to or depending upon another which is termed principal * * *.' (Citing cases.) 2
For the out of state services to be 'incidental' to the in-state services as 'incidental' is used in the statute, the in-state services would have to be the principal services rendered by claimant to International. The inclusion of the descriptive words 'temporary,' 'transitory' and 'isolated transactions' was intended by the legislature as a further definitional guide as to what was to be considered 'incidental.' The services rendered by claimant to International were reguarly rendered outside of Idaho. It was established that only five per cent of claimant's haul originated in Idaho, and three per cent terminated in this state. The large majority of the hauls orignated and terminated outside of this state. Thus, the out of state activities could not be described as temporary, transitory or isolated transactions. They were, rather, a major regular, enduring and frequent part of the services performed by claimant for International. The Industrial Accident Board was correct in concluding that the out of state services could not be characterized as 'incidental' to the services performed within this state.
Claimant next contends the Industrial Accident Board erred in finding claimant's 'base of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilbert v. Labor and Industry Review Com'n
...his work and to which he customarily returns in order to receive instructions and communications." Heller v. International Transp., Inc., 94 Idaho 91, 481 P.2d 602, 604 (1971) (citations ¶ 16 The third criterion is whether the service is "directed or controlled" from a place in Wisconsin. I......
-
Booth v. City of Burley
...96 Idaho 699, 535 P.2d 672 (1975); Levesque v. Hi-Boy Meats, Inc., 95 Idaho 808, 520 P.2d 549 (1974); Heller v. International Transport, Inc., 94 Idaho 91, 481 P.2d 602 (1971). However, several prior decisions of this court have held that findings of fact by the Industrial Commission are no......
-
Iverson Const., Inc. v. Department of Employment Services, Div. of Job Service
...frequent part of the services performed on the employer's behalf during the reporting periods. See Heller v. International Transp., Inc., 94 Idaho 91, 92-93, 481 P.2d 602, 603-04 (1971); In re Mallia, 299 N.Y. 232, 86 N.E.2d 577, 9 A.L.R.2d 636 (1949); Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co. v. S......
-
Skillpath Seminars v. Summers, WD 63577.
...v. Dep't of Labor, 269 Mont. 108, 887 P.2d 236 (1994); In re Normyle, 161 A.D.2d 888, 556 N.Y.S.2d 785 (1990); Heller v. Int'l Transport, Inc., 94 Idaho 91, 481 P.2d 602 (1971). None of these cases, however, explicitly contemplate the Department of Labor's examples. Furthermore, important f......