Opinion
No. 2-233 / 01-0326.
Filed August 14, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, JOHN ACKERMAN, Judge.
The petitioner appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the chief deputy workers' compensation commissioner's decision that the agency had no subject matter jurisdiction over the petitioner's workers' compensation claim. AFFIRMED.
Alice S. Horneber of Horneber Law Firm, Sioux City, for appellant.
Timothy A. Clausen of Klass, Stoik, Mugan, Villone, Phillips, Orzechowski, Clausen Lapierre, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellees.
Heard by MAHAN, P.J., and ZIMMER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Mark Zomer appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the chief deputy workers' compensation commissioner's decision that the agency had no subject matter jurisdiction over his workers' compensation claim. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS.
West River Farms, Inc. is a family farm corporation solely owned by Gertrude Blom. Mark Zomer married Blom's daughter Karla in 1991. Zomer began working for West River Farms as an agricultural employee in 1994.
West River Farms purchased workers' compensation insurance from the respondent, IMT Insurance Company through a local insurance agency. This insurance began as early as 1985 and was in place when Zomer came to work for the family farm corporation. Gertrude Blom believed Zomer was covered under the policy; however, the policy did not include an endorsement providing coverage to family members who are otherwise excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Iowa law.
According to the record, these endorsements were known as 420 endorsements.
On November 8, 1995, Zomer suffered a traumatic amputation of his right arm below the elbow while operating a combine during his employment with West River Farms. One of Blom's insurance agents notified the hospital where Zomer was being treated that there was workers' compensation in effect. However, IMT later informed Zomer and Blom that there was no workers' compensation coverage for Zomer because he was Blom's son-in-law.
Zomer subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A deputy workers' compensation commissioner determined there was a mistake in the policy that was issued. The deputy concluded the insurance policy in force on the date of the accident should be reformed and amended to specifically identify Zomer as an employee subject to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The deputy determined West River Farms and IMT were liable to Zomer in accordance with the workers' compensation laws of Iowa.
On appeal, the chief deputy workers' compensation commissioner entered a final decision denying Zomer's claim for workers' compensation benefits. The chief deputy determined Zomer was not covered by the insurance contract at issue and was therefore exempted from workers' compensation coverage pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.1 (1997). The chief deputy further concluded the agency does not have equitable power or authority to reform the insurance contract.
Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Iowa Code section 85.1 were amended in 1997, 1997 Iowa Acts ch. 43, §§ 1, 2, but those paragraphs are not applicable to this appeal.
On Zomer's petition for judicial review, the district court affirmed the chief deputy's decision. The court concluded that the contract for the purchase of workers' compensation insurance was not written to include coverage for Zomer, and thus his injury is not one that is covered by the Workers' Compensation Act. The court also concluded the agency did not have any equitable jurisdiction to reform the insurance contract. Zomer appeals.
II. SCOPE OF REVIEW.
The standard by which we review decisions of administrative agencies is well-settled. Our review of an administrative agency's decision is solely to correct any errors of law. Christensen v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 602 N.W.2d 199, 200 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). The agency's decision is final if it is supported by substantial evidence and is correct in its conclusions of law. Id. at 201. Because law issues are determined by the judiciary alone, we owe an agency only limited deference in matters of law, including statutory interpretation. H Z Vending v. Iowa Dep't of Inspections Appeals, 593 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
III. MERITS.
In order for the agency to have subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, the provisions of Iowa Code chapter 85 (workers' compensation) must be applicable. Zomer argues that chapter 85 is applicable to him because, pursuant to section 85.1(6), West River Farms assumed liability for compensation by purchasing valid workers' compensation insurance. He also claims that the agency has the power to apply rules of equity to determine whether an award should be made. IMT argues Zomer failed to preserve error on this claim, that the agency lacks the equitable authority to reform the contract at issue, and that even if the agency has the power of reformation, Zomer did not meet his burden of proving the insurance contract should be reformed. We assume without deciding that error was preserved on Zomer's claim involving the equitable jurisdiction of the agency, and we will address the merits of that claim.
We begin by mentioning that administrative agencies are tribunals with limited jurisdiction. Bair v. Blue Ribbon, Inc., 256 Iowa 660, 663, 129 N.W.2d 85, 86 (1964). Their jurisdiction depends entirely upon the validity and terms of the statutes imposing power upon them. Id. They cannot confer jurisdiction upon themselves. Id. If relevant statutory provisions are not met and complied with, then they have no jurisdiction. Id.
Zomer acknowledges that section 85.1(3) provides that chapter 85 does not apply to persons engaged in agriculture with certain exceptions. Under section 85.1(3)(b), the legislature has determined that certain employees are specifically included within the exemption from coverage of section 85.1(3). These employees include the spouses of the employer's children. Iowa Code § 85.1(3)(b)(1). Section 85.1(6) provides for an exception, allowing employers to assume liability for compensation "by the purchase of valid workers' compensation insurance specifically including the employee or classification of employees." Iowa Code § 85.1(6) (emphasis added). The employer assumes liability in this manner "only with respect to the employee or classification of employees as are within the coverage of the workers' compensation insurance contract and only for the time period in which the insurance contract is in force." Id.
Reformation of an instrument is a remedy that lies within the sound discretion of the equity court. Wellman Sav. Bank v. Adams, 454 N.W.2d 852, 855 (Iowa 1990). "An administrative agency has only such jurisdiction and authority as expressly conferred by statute or necessarily inferred from the power expressly granted." Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 477 N.W.2d 678, 682 (Iowa 1991) (citation omitted).
We first address the applicability of chapter 85. There is no dispute that West River Farms was a business engaging in agricultural pursuits when Zomer was injured. There is also no dispute that Zomer is the spouse of his employer's daughter. Thus, he is exempted from chapter 85 unless he falls within the exception provided for in section 85.1(6). As we have already mentioned, Zomer must have been specifically included, or his classification of employees must have been specifically included, in the insurance policy for coverage to exist. West River Farms failed to specifically include Zomer or his classification of employees in the policy at issue. The policy issued by IMT did not include an endorsement which would have provided coverage for Zomer. We conclude the trial court and agency did not err in determining the agency was without jurisdiction to award Zomer benefits under chapter 85. We affirm the district court and agency on this issue.
Next, we consider whether the agency had the power to reform the insurance contract. Zomer has not cited to an express statutory grant of the power of reformation to the agency, nor has he indicated how reformation is necessarily inferred from a power expressly granted. We find no express grant of the power of reformation to the agency, nor do we find it necessary to any other agency powers expressly granted. Accordingly, we conclude that the chief deputy commissioner correctly determined that the agency does not have the power to reform the insurance policy at issue in this case. Thus, we affirm the district court and agency on this issue.
The agency does not have equitable jurisdiction other than the power to make equitable apportionment among dependents. Iowa Code § 85.43.
IV. CONCLUSION.
We conclude the agency and district court correctly determined that Zomer was not covered by the terms of the workers' compensation insurance policy at issue here. Thus, the agency was without jurisdiction to consider his claim for benefits. Furthermore, we conclude the agency and district court correctly found that the agency had no authority to reform the insurance policy. We affirm the agency and trial court's rulings.
AFFIRMED.