Martin v. Raker

In Martin v. Raker, 173 Mich. App. 23; 433 N.W.2d 377 (1988), the plaintiff/employee sued the defendants/employers in tort. The plaintiff argued that his claim was not barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the worker's compensation statute, MCL 418.131; MSA 17.237(131), because he was a part-time agricultural worker and employers of part-time agricultural workers are not covered by the statute under 115. The defendants argued that the exclusive remedy provision did apply, because the defendants had assumed coverage under 121 by purchasing insurance. Martin, 27. The Court agreed with the defendants: We believe it makes no difference what defendants' insurer chose to call its coverage. Since Michael Martin has received, or defendants and their insurer are willing to pay, benefits equal to those required by the Workers' Disability Compensation Act, Michael Martin, in effect, had workers' compensation coverage. Id., 28.