A worker injured on the job in a different state than where they were hired or regularly employed faces a patchwork of overlapping rules with no single governing authority. Workers’ compensation operates state by state, so one incident can trigger jurisdictional disputes across multiple states. The National Council of Insurance Legislators met in Boston on July 18, 2026, and re-endorsed a 2005 model agreement designed to coordinate claims between states, but the framework still does not address remote work.
State Overlaps and Forum Shopping
The state where the injury occurs is typically the starting point for a claim, but many states assert jurisdiction when the worker was hired there or usually performs work there, even if the accident happened elsewhere. No federal statute ranks competing state claims for most private-sector employees, leaving the overlap unresolved.
In Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., the Supreme Court allowed a worker to collect benefits in two states. A District of Columbia employee who hurt his back on a job in Arlington, Virginia in January 1971 first received a Virginia award of $62 a week, then returned to the District and sought a supplemental award under its law. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a four-justice plurality in 1980, held that full faith and credit does not prevent a second state from adding an award, provided payments are coordinated to avoid double recovery.
Medical bills accumulate while insurers and states determine responsibility. A family health plan often falls short, since group policies typically exclude injuries that occur on the job. When two carriers dispute which state’s law applies, the worker may face unpaid claims from both.
Ohio is one of four states with a state-run workers’ compensation system, alongside North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. Washington’s guidance is explicit: private insurance is not permitted there, meaning a policy purchased in Texas or Florida will not cover a crew working in Spokane.
Reciprocity Gaps and Employer Liability
Consider a framing contractor in Boise sending four carpenters to a six-week warehouse job in Spokane. Idaho has a reciprocal agreement with Washington, allowing the crew to work under the Idaho policy if the insurer confirms coverage and an extraterritorial coverage certificate is filed with Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries.
If a carpenter is injured on day nine and the department rejects the claim, directing the worker to the Idaho insurer, the situation becomes costly. Should the Idaho insurer deny the claim because the injury occurred in Washington, the contractor becomes liable for unpaid premiums, penalties, interest, and claim costs.
Reciprocity agreements are narrower than their name implies. Washington’s deals with Montana and Nevada exclude construction work, and builders from states without agreements must report directly to the department. Timing also complicates matters: the Idaho Industrial Commission’s extraterritorial coverage rules prohibit backdating requests or issuing certificates more than two weeks before work begins.
Reciprocity Paperwork Tends to Fail
Other visiting workers receive no fixed day count under Washington law. Instead, each case is evaluated based on the type of work performed and the worker’s travel pattern. This discretionary approach introduces uncertainty for employers trying to plan coverage in advance.
Remote Staff and Jurisdictional Reach
Washington treats teleworkers as based where they live, meaning a single remote employee in the state can trigger coverage requirements. A Portland company with one analyst working from a spare room in Vancouver, Washington, must maintain a Washington account for that worker regardless of its Oregon policy.
Because home injuries often rely on self-reporting, documenting work hours and defining the home workspace in writing provides stronger protection.
