Howard Delivery Service, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005 1

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., ET AL. v. ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05–128. Argued March 21, 2006—Decided June 15, 2006
The Bankruptcy Code accords priorities, among unsecured creditors’
claims, for unpaid “wages, salaries, or commissions,” 11 U. S. C.
§507(a)(4), and for unpaid contributions to “an employee benefit
plan,” §507(a)(5). Petitioner Howard Delivery Service, Inc. (Howard),
was required by each State in which it operated to maintain workers’
compensation coverage to secure its employees’ receipt of health, dis
ability, and death benefits in the event of on-the-job accidents. How
ard contracted with respondent Zurich American Insurance Co. (Zu
rich) to provide this insurance for Howard’s operations in ten States.
After Howard filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, Zurich filed an
unsecured creditor’s claim for some $400,000 in premiums, asserting
that they qualified as “contributions to an employee benefit plan” en
titled to priority under §507(a)(5). The Bankruptcy Court denied pri
ority status to the claim, reasoning that because overdue premiums
do not qualify as bargained-for benefits furnished in lieu of increased
wages, they fall outside §507(a)(5)’s compass. The District Court af
firmed, similarly determining that unpaid workers’ compensation
premiums do not share the priority provided for unpaid contributions
to employee pension and health plans. A Fourth Circuit panel re
versed without agreeing on a rationale.
Held: Insurance carriers’ claims for unpaid workers’ compensation
premiums owed by an employer fall outside the priority allowed by
§507(a)(5). Although the question is close, such premiums are more
appropriately bracketed with liability insurance premiums for, e.g.,
motor vehicle, fire, or theft insurance, than with contributions made
for fringe benefits that complete a pay package, e.g., pension plans
and group health, life, and disability insurance, which undisputedly
2 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Syllabus

are covered by §507(a)(5).
United States v. Embassy Restaurant, Inc., 359 U. S. 29, 29–35,
and Joint Industry Bd. of Elec. Industry v. United States, 391 U. S.
224, 228–229, held that an employer’s unpaid contributions to collec
tively-bargained plans providing, respectively, life insurance and an
nuity benefits to employees did not qualify as “wages” entitled to pri
ority status under the prior bankruptcy law. Congress thereafter
enacted what is now §507(a)(5) in order to provide a priority for the
kind of fringe benefits at issue in those cases. Notably, Congress did
not enlarge the “wages, salaries, [and] commissions” priority,
§507(a)(4), to include fringe benefits, but instead created a new prior
ity, §507(a)(5), one step lower than the wage priority. The new provi
sion allows a plan provider to recover unpaid premiums—albeit only
after the employees’ claims for “wages, salaries, or commissions” have
been paid. The current Code’s juxtaposition of the wages and em
ployee benefit plan priorities manifests Congress’ comprehension that
fringe benefits generally complement, or substitute for, hourly pay.
Congress tightened the linkage of §507(a)(4) and (a)(5) by imposing a
combined cap on the two priorities, currently set at $10,000 per em
ployee. See §507(a)(5)(B). Because §507(a)(4) has a higher priority
status, all claims for wages are paid first, up to the $10,000 limit;
claims under §507(a)(5) for benefit plan contributions can be recov
ered next up to the remainder of the $10,000 ceiling. No other §507
subsections are so joined together.
Apart from the clues provided by Embassy Restaurant, Joint In
dustry Bd., and the textual ties binding §507(a)(4) and (5), Congress
left undefined the §507(a)(5) terms, “contributions to an employee
benefit plan . . . arising from services rendered.” (Emphases added.)
Maintaining that §507(a)(5) covers more than wage substitutes like
the ones at issue in Embassy Restaurant and Joint Industry Bd., Zu
rich urges the Court to borrow the encompassing definition of em
ployee benefit plan contained in the Employee Retirement Income Se
curity Act of 1974 (ERISA): “[A]ny plan, fund, or program [that
provides] its participants . . . , through the purchase of insurance or
otherwise, . . . benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability,
[or] death.” 29 U. S. C. §1002(1). Federal courts have questioned
whether ERISA is appropriately used to fill in blanks in a Bank
ruptcy Code provision, and the panel below parted ways on this issue.
In any event, ERISA’s signals are mixed, for §1003(b)(3) specifically
exempts from ERISA’s coverage the genre of plan here at issue, i.e.,
one “maintained solely for the purpose of complying with applicable
work[ers’] compensation laws.” That exemption strengthens the
Court’s resistance to Zurich’s argument. Rather, the Court follows
United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S.
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 3

Syllabus

213, 219, in noting that “[h]ere and there in the Bankruptcy Code
Congress has included specific directions that establish the signifi
cance for bankruptcy law of a term used elsewhere in the federal
statutes.” Id., at 219–220. No such directions are contained in
§507(a)(5), and the Court has no warrant to write them into the text.
This case turns instead on the essential character of workers’ com
pensation regimes. Unlike pension plans or group life, health, and
disability insurance—negotiated or granted to supplement, or substi
tute for, wages—workers’ compensation prescriptions modify, or sub
stitute for, the common-law tort liability to which employers were ex
posed for work-related accidents. Workers’ compensation regimes
provide something for employees, assuring limited fixed payments for
on-the-job injuries, and something for employers, removing the risk of
large judgments and heavy costs in tort litigation. No such trade-off
is involved in employer-sponsored fringe benefit plans. Moreover,
employer-sponsored pension and health plans characteristically in
sure the employee (or his survivor) only. In contrast, workers’ com
pensation insurance shields the insured enterprise. When an em
ployer fails to secure workers’ compensation coverage, or loses
coverage for nonpayment of premiums, an affected employee’s rem
edy would not lie in a suit for premiums that should have been paid
to a compensation carrier. Instead, employees who sustain work-
related injuries commonly have recourse to a state-maintained fund
or are authorized by state law to pursue the larger recoveries success
ful tort litigation ordinarily yields. Further distancing workers’ com
pensation and fringe benefits, nearly all States require employers to
participate in workers’ compensation, with substantial penalties,
even criminal liability, for failure to do so. It is relevant, although
not dispositive, that States overwhelmingly prescribe and regulate
insurance coverage for on-the-job accidents, while commonly leaving
fringe benefits to private ordering.
Zurich’s argument that according its claim a §507(a)(5) priority will
give workers’ compensation carriers an incentive to continue coverage
of a failing enterprise, thus promoting rehabilitation of the business,
is unpersuasive. Rather than speculating on how such insurers
might react were they to be granted a §507(a)(5) priority, the Court is
guided by the Bankruptcy Code’s objective of securing equal distribu
tion among creditors, see, e.g., Kothe v. R. C. Taylor Trust, 280 U. S.
224, 227, and by the corollary principle that preference provisions
must be tightly construed, see, e.g., id., at 227. Cases like Zurich’s are
illustrative. The Bankruptcy Code caps the amount recoverable for con
tributions to employee benefit plans. Opening the §507(a)(5) priority to
workers’ compensation carriers could shrink the amount available to
cover unpaid contributions to plans paradigmatically qualifying as wage
4 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Syllabus

surrogates, primarily pension and health benefit plans. Pp. 5–16.
403 F. 3d 228, reversed and remanded.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY,
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and ALITO, JJ., joined.
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________

No. 05–128
_________________

HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., ET AL.,

PETITIONERS v. ZURICH AMERICAN

INSURANCE CO.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 15, 2006]

JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Bankruptcy Code accords a priority, among unse
cured creditors’ claims, for unpaid “wages, salaries, or
commissions,” 11 U. S. C. A. §507(a)(4)(A) (Supp. 2006),
and for unpaid contributions to “an employee benefit
plan,” §507(a)(5).1 It is uncontested here that §507(a)(5)
covers fringe benefits that complete a pay package—
typically pension plans, and group health, life, and disabil
——————
1 All references to provisions of the Bankruptcy Code use the current
numbering. At the time respondent Zurich American Insurance Com
pany (Zurich) claimed priority treatment for unpaid workers’ compen
sation premiums, the relevant subsections were numbered (a)(3)
(wages) and (a)(4) (employee benefit plans). The Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–8,
§212(2), 119 Stat. 51, altered the priority list so that (a)(3) became
(a)(4), and (a)(4) became (a)(5). The only other statutory change rele
vant here concerns the dollar amount accorded priority status under
current §507(a)(4) and (a)(5). When Zurich filed its proof of claim, the
total sum allowed under those two subsections was $4,650 for each
employee, see note following 11 U. S. C. §104 (2000 ed., Supp. III).
That ceiling has since been raised, pursuant to §104, to $10,000 per
employee, 11 U. S. C. A. §507(a)(5)(B)(i) (Supp. 2006).
2 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Opinion of the Court

ity insurance—whether unilaterally provided by an em
ployer or the result of collective bargaining. This case
presents the question whether the §507(a)(5) priority also
encompasses claims for unpaid premiums on a policy
purchased by an employer to cover its workers’ compensa
tion liability. We hold that premiums owed by an em
ployer to a workers’ compensation carrier do not fit within
§507(a)(5).
Workers’ compensation laws assure that workers will be
compensated for work-related injuries whether or not
negligence of the employer contributed to the injury. To
that extent, arrangements for the payment of compensa
tion awards might be typed “employee benefit plan[s].” On
the other hand, statutorily prescribed workers’ compensa
tion regimes do not run exclusively to the employees’
benefit. In this regard, they differ from privately ordered,
employer-funded pension and welfare plans that, together
with wages, remunerate employees for services rendered.
Employers, too, gain from workers’ compensation prescrip
tions. In exchange for no-fault liability, employers gain
immunity from tort actions that might yield damages
many times higher than awards payable under workers’
compensation schedules. Although the question is close,
we conclude that premiums paid for workers’ compensa
tion insurance are more appropriately bracketed with
premiums paid for other liability insurance, e.g., motor
vehicle, fire, or theft insurance, than with contributions
made to secure employee retirement, health, and disability
benefits.
In holding that claims for workers’ compensation insur
ance premiums do not qualify for §507(a)(5) priority, we
are mindful that the Bankruptcy Code aims, in the main,
to secure equal distribution among creditors. See Kothe v.
R. C. Taylor Trust, 280 U. S. 224, 227 (1930); Kuehner v.
Irving Trust Co., 299 U. S. 445, 451 (1937). We take into
account, as well, the complementary principle that prefer
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 3

Opinion of the Court

ential treatment of a class of creditors is in order only
when clearly authorized by Congress. See Nathanson v.
NLRB, 344 U. S. 25, 29 (1952); United States v. Embassy
Restaurant, Inc., 359 U. S. 29, 31 (1959).
I
Petitioner Howard Delivery Service, Inc. (Howard), for
many years owned and operated a freight trucking busi
ness. Howard employed as many as 480 workers and
operated in about a dozen States. Each of those States
required Howard to maintain workers’ compensation
coverage to secure its employees’ receipt of health, disabil
ity, and death benefits in the event of on-the-job accidents.
Howard contracted with Zurich to provide this insurance
for Howard’s operations in ten States.
On January 30, 2002, Howard filed a Chapter 11 bank
ruptcy petition. Zurich filed an unsecured creditor’s claim
in that proceeding, seeking priority status for some
$400,000 in unpaid workers’ compensation premiums. In
an amended proof of claim, Zurich asserted that these
unpaid premiums qualified as “[c]ontributions to an em
ployee benefit plan” entitled to priority under §507(a)(5).
App. 32a.2 The Bankruptcy Court denied priority status to
Zurich’s claim, reasoning that the overdue premiums do
not qualify as bargained-for benefits furnished in lieu of
increased wages, hence they fall outside §507(a)(5)’s com
pass. App. to Pet. for Cert. 51a–57a. The District Court
affirmed, similarly determining that unpaid workers’
compensation premiums do not share the priority provided
for unpaid contributions to employee pension and health
——————
2 In its initial proof of claim, Zurich did not check the box marked

“Contributions to an employee benefit plan,” but instead checked a box
marked “Other,” and wrote in “Administrative Expense—Insurance
Premiums.” App. 22a, 30a. Zurich does not argue here that the work
ers’ compensation premiums owed by Howard qualify as administrative
expenses entitled to priority under §507(a)(2).
4 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Opinion of the Court

plans. Id., at 39a–50a.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed 2
to 1 in a per curiam opinion. 403 F. 3d 228 (2005). The
judges in the majority, however, disagreed on the ration
ale. Judge King concluded that §507(a)(5) unambiguously
accorded priority status to claims for unpaid workers’
compensation premiums. Id., at 237. Judge Shedd, con
curring in the judgment, found the §507(a)(5) phrase
“employee benefit plan” ambiguous. Looking to legislative
history, he concluded that Congress likely intended to give
past due workers’ compensation premiums priority status.
Id., at 238–239. In dissent, Judge Niemeyer, like Judge
King, relied on the “plain meaning” of §507(a)(5), but read
the provision unequivocally to deny priority status to an
insurer’s claim for unpaid workers’ compensation premi
ums. Id., at 241–244.
We granted certiorari, 546 U. S. ___ (2005), to resolve a
split among the Circuits concerning the priority status of
premiums owed by a bankrupt employer to a workers’ com
pensation carrier. Compare In re Birmingham-Nashville
Express, Inc., 224 F. 3d 511, 517 (CA6 2000) (denying prior
ity status to unpaid workers’ compensation premiums), In re
Southern Star Foods, Inc., 144 F. 3d 712, 717 (CA10 1998)
(same), and In re HLM Corp., 62 F. 3d 224, 226–227 (CA8
1995) (same), with Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Plaid Pan
tries, Inc., 10 F. 3d 605, 607 (CA9 1993) (according priority
status), and 403 F. 3d, at 229 (case below) (same).3
——————
3 We have jurisdiction of this case, as did the Court of Appeals, be

cause the District Court’s ruling qualifies as a final decision under 28
U. S. C. §158(d). See 403 F. 3d, at 231, and n. 6 (District Court’s ruling
effectively concluded the dispute between Zurich and Howard, for the
adverse decision rendered Zurich’s claim valueless and Zurich agreed to
withdraw the claim if it failed to prevail on appeal). See also In re Saco
Local Development Corp., 711 F. 2d 441, 444 (CA1 1983) (majority
opinion of Breyer, J.) (“Congress has long provided that orders in
bankruptcy cases may be immediately appealed if they finally dispose
of discrete disputes within the larger case—and in particular, it has long
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 5

Opinion of the Court

II
Adjoining subsections of the Bankruptcy Code,
§507(a)(4) and (5), are centrally involved in this case.
Subsections 507(a)(4) and (5) currently provide:
“(a) The following expenses and claims have priority
in the following order:
. . . . .
“(4) Fourth, allowed unsecured claims . . . for—
“(A) wages, salaries, or commissions, including va
cation, severance, and sick leave pay earned by an in
dividual . . . .
. . . . .
“(5) Fifth, allowed unsecured claims for contribu
tions to an employee benefit plan—
“(A) arising from services rendered within 180 days
before the date of the filing of the [bankruptcy] peti
tion or the date of the cessation of the debtor’s busi
ness, whichever occurs first . . . .” 11 U. S. C. A. §507
(Supp. 2006).
Two decisions of this Court, United States v. Embassy
Restaurant, Inc., 359 U. S. 29 (1959), and Joint Industry
Bd. of Elec. Industry v. United States, 391 U. S. 224
(1968), prompted the enactment of §507(a)(5). Embassy
Restaurant concerned a provision of the 1898 Bankruptcy
Act that granted priority status to “wages” but said noth
ing of “employee benefits plans” or anything similar. 11
U. S. C. §104(a)(2) (1952 ed., Supp. V; repealed 1978). We
held that a debtor’s unpaid contributions to a union wel
fare plan—which provided life insurance, weekly sick
benefits, hospital and surgical benefits, and other advan
tages—did not qualify within the priority for unpaid
“wages.” 359 U. S., at 29–35. In Joint Industry Bd., we
——————
provided that orders finally settling creditors’ claims are separately
appealable.”).
6 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Opinion of the Court

followed Embassy Restaurant and held that an employer’s
bargained-for contributions to an employees’ annuity plan
did not qualify as “wages” entitled to priority status. 391
U. S., at 228–229.
To provide a priority for fringe benefits of the kind at
issue in Embassy Restaurant and Joint Industry Bd.,
Congress added what is now §507(a)(5) when it amended
the Bankruptcy Act in 1978. See H. R. Rep. No. 95–595,
p. 187 (1977) (hereinafter H. R. Rep.) (explaining that the
amendment covers “health insurance programs, life in
surance plans, pension funds, and all other forms of em
ployee compensation that [are] not in the form of wages”);
S. Rep. No. 95–989, p. 69 (1978). Notably, Congress did
not enlarge the “wages, salaries, [and] commissions” prior
ity, §507(a)(4), to include fringe benefits. Instead, Con
gress created a new priority for such benefits, one step
lower than the wage priority. The new provision, cur
rently contained in §507(a)(5), allows the provider of an
employee benefit plan to recover unpaid premiums—albeit
only after the employees’ claims for “wages, salaries, or
commissions” have been paid. §507(a)(4).
Beyond genuine debate, the main office of §507(a)(5) is
to capture portions of employee compensation for services
rendered not covered by §507(a)(4). Cf. Embassy Restau
rant, 359 U. S., at 35; Joint Industry Bd., 391 U. S., at 228–
229 (both emphasizing Congress’ prerogative in this re
gard). The current Code’s juxtaposition of the wages and
employee benefit plan priorities manifests Congress’ com
prehension that fringe benefits generally complement, or
“substitute” for, hourly pay. See H. R. Rep., at 357 (noting
“the realities of labor contract negotiations, under which
wage demands are often reduced if adequate fringe benefits
are substituted”); id., at 187 (“[T]o ignore the reality of
collective bargaining that often trades wage dollars for
fringe benefits does a severe disservice to those working for
a failing enterprise.”); In re Saco Local Development Corp.,
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 7

Opinion of the Court

711 F. 2d 441, 449 (CA1 1983) (majority opinion of Breyer,
J.) (substitution of fringe benefits for wages “can normally
be assumed, unless the employer is a philanthropist”).
Congress tightened the linkage of (a)(4) and (a)(5) by
imposing a combined cap on the two priorities, currently
set at $10,000 per employee. See §507(a)(5)(B).4 Because
(a)(4) has a higher priority status, all claims for wages are
paid first, up to the $10,000 limit; claims under (a)(5) for
contributions to employee benefit plans can be recovered
next up to the remainder of the $10,000 ceiling. No other
subsections of §507 are joined together by a common cap
in this way.
Putting aside the clues provided by Embassy Restau
rant, Joint Industry Bd., and the textual ties binding
§507(a)(4) and (5), we recognize that Congress left unde
fined the §507(a)(5) terms: “contributions to an employee
benefit plan . . . arising from services rendered within 180
days before the date of the filing of the [bankruptcy] peti
tion.” (Emphases added.) Maintaining that subsection
(a)(5) covers more than wage substitutes of the kind at
issue in Embassy Restaurant and Joint Industry Bd.,
Zurich urges the Court to borrow the encompassing defini
tion of employee benefit plan contained in the Employee
——————
4 Section 507(a)(5)(B) provides:
“(a) The following expenses and claims have priority in the following
order:
. . . . .
“(5) Fifth, allowed unsecured claims for contributions to an employee
benefit plan—
. . . . .
“(B) for each such plan, to the extent of—
“(i) the number of employees covered by each such plan multiplied by
$10,000; less
“(ii) the aggregate amount paid to such employees under paragraph
(4) of this subsection, plus the aggregate amount paid by the estate on
behalf of such employees to any other employee benefit plan.” 11
U. S. C. A. §507 (Supp. 2006).
8 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Opinion of the Court

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat.
829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001 et seq. (2000 ed. and
Supp. III). See §1002(1) (term “employee welfare benefit
plan” means, inter alia, “any plan, fund, or program [that
provides] its participants or their beneficiaries, through
the purchase of insurance or otherwise, . . . benefits in the
event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemploy
ment”); §1002(3) (term “employee benefit plan . . . means
an employee welfare benefit plan or an employee pension
benefit plan or a plan which is both an employee welfare
benefit plan and an employee pension benefit plan”); cf.
§1003(b)(3) (excluding plans “maintained solely for the
purpose of complying with applicable work[ers’] compensa
tion laws or unemployment compensation or disability
insurance laws”). The dissent endorses this borrowing.
See post, at 8–9.
Federal courts have questioned whether ERISA is appro
priately used to fill in blanks in a Bankruptcy Code provi
sion, and the panel below parted ways on this issue. See
403 F. 3d, at 235, n. 9 (King, J., concurring in judgment)
(“declin[ing] to rely upon the ERISA definition”); id., at
239–241 (Shedd, J., concurring in judgment) (reading legis
lative history to indicate that Congress intended “ ‘employee
benefit plan’ in the bankruptcy priority provision to have
the same meaning that [the term] has in ERISA”); id., at
245 (Niemeyer, J., dissenting) (maintaining that ERISA
definition is inapt in Bankruptcy Code priority context); cf.
Birmingham-Nashville Express, 224 F. 3d, at 516–517
(noting division of opinion but concluding that decisions
rejecting incorporation of ERISA’s “employee benefit plan”
definition into §507(a)(5) “ha[ve] the better of the argu
ment”); HLM Corp., 62 F. 3d, at 226 (“[T]he ERISA defini
tion and associated court guidelines were designed to effec
tuate the purpose of ERISA, not the Bankruptcy Code.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Southern Star Foods,
144 F. 3d, at 714 (same). Compare Brief for American
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 9

Opinion of the Court

Home Assurance Company et al. as Amici Curiae 17–25
(legislative history suggests Congress intended to incorpo
rate ERISA definition), with Brief for National Coordinat
ing Committee for Multiemployer Plans as Amicus Curiae
22–27, and n. 21 (legislative history suggests Congress did
not intend to incorporate ERISA definition).
ERISA’s omnibus definition does show, at least, that the
term “employee welfare benefit plan” is susceptible of a
construction that would include workers’ compensation
plans. That Act’s signals are mixed, however, for 29
U. S. C. §1003(b)(3) specifically exempts from ERISA’s
coverage the genre of plan here at issue, i.e., one “main
tained solely for the purpose of complying with applicable
work[ers’] compensation laws.”5 The §1003(b)(3) exemp
tion strengthens our resistance to Zurich’s argument. We
follow the lead of an earlier decision, United States v.
Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213,
219 (1996), in noting that “[h]ere and there in the Bank
ruptcy Code Congress has included specific directions that
establish the significance for bankruptcy law of a term
used elsewhere in the federal statutes.” Id., at 219–220.
No such directions are contained in §507(a)(5), and we
have no warrant to write them into the text.
This case turns, we hold, not on a definition borrowed
from a statute designed without bankruptcy in mind, but
on the essential character of workers’ compensation re
gimes. Unlike pension provisions or group life, health,
and disability insurance plans—negotiated or granted as
pay supplements or substitutes—workers’ compensation
——————
5 Congress also excluded most workers’ compensation benefits from

the purview of the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U. S. C. §3141(2) (2000 ed.,
Supp. III), a measure that fixes a floor under wages on Government
projects. The Davis-Bacon Act incorporates “bona fide fringe benefits,”
broadly defined, into prevailing wage determinations, but specifically
excludes benefits contractors are required to provide under federal, state,
or local law. §3141(2)(B).
10 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Opinion of the Court

prescriptions have a dominant employer-oriented thrust:
They modify, or substitute for, the common-law tort liabil
ity to which employers were exposed for work-related acci
dents. See 6 A. Larson & L. Larson, Workers’ Compensa
tion Law §100.01[1], pp. 100–2 to 100–3 (2005) (hereinafter
Larson & Larson); 4 J. Lee & B. Lindahl, Modern Tort Law:
Liability and Litigation §43:25, pp. 43–45 to 43–46 (2d ed.
2003). As typically explained:
“The invention of workers compensation as it has
existed in this country since about 1910 involves a
classic social trade-off or, to use a Latin term, a quid
pro quo. . . . What is given to the injured employee is
the right to receive certain limited benefits regardless
of fault, that is, even in cases in which the employee is
partially or entirely at fault, or when there is no fault
on anyone’s part. What is taken away is the em
ployee’s right to recover full tort damages, including
damages for pain and suffering, in cases in which there
is fault on the employer’s part.” P. Lencsis, Workers
Compensation: A Reference and Guide 9 (1998) (here
inafter Lencsis).
Workers’ compensation regimes thus provide something
for employees—they assure limited fixed payments for on-
the-job injuries—and something for employers—they
remove the risk of large judgments and heavy costs gener
ated by tort litigation. See 6 Larson & Larson §100.03[1],
at 100–11 (“[Workers’ compensation] relieves the employer
not only of common-law tort liability, but also of statutory
liability under virtually all state statutes, as well as of
liability in contract and in admiralty, for an injury covered
by the compensation act.” (footnote omitted)); Lubove,
Workmen’s Compensation and the Prerogatives of Volun
tarism, 8 Lab. Hist. 254, 258–262 (Fall 1967) (workers’
compensation programs were adopted by nearly every
State in large part because employers anticipated signifi
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 11

Opinion of the Court

cant benefits from the programs; other programs workers’
groups sought to make mandatory—notably, health insur
ance—were not similarly embraced). No such tradeoff is
involved in fringe benefit plans that augment each covered
worker’s hourly pay.6
Employer-sponsored pension plans, and group health or
life insurance plans, characteristically insure the em
ployee (or his survivor) only. In contrast, workers’ com
pensation insurance, in common with other liability insur
ance in this regard, e.g., fire, theft, and motor vehicle
insurance, shield the insured enterprise: Workers’ com
pensation policies both protect the employer-policyholder
from liability in tort, and cover its obligation to pay work
ers’ compensation benefits. See In re HLM Corp., 165
B. R. 38, 41 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Minn. 1994). When an employer
fails to secure workers’ compensation coverage, or loses
coverage for nonpayment of premiums, an affected em
ployee’s remedy would not lie in a suit for premiums that
should have been paid to a compensation carrier. Instead,
employees who sustain work-related injuries would com
monly have recourse to a state-maintained fund. See, e.g.,
Minn. Stat. §176.183, subd. 1 (2004); N. Y. Work. Comp.
Law Ann. §26–a (West Supp. 2006). Or, in lieu of the
limited benefits obtainable from a state fund under work
ers’ compensation schedules, the injured employee might
——————
6 Providing health care to workers fosters a healthy and happy work

force, and a contented workforce benefits employers. The dissent
suggests this as a reason to rank workers’ compensation insurance with
health and pension plans for bankruptcy priority purposes. See post, at
5. But the benefit employers gain from providing health and pension
plans for their employees is of a secondary order; indeed, under the
dissent’s logic, wages could be said to “benefit” the employer because
they ensure that employees come to work, can afford transportation to
the job site, etc. These benefits redound to the employer reflexively, as
a consequence of the benefit to the employee. Workers’ compensation
insurance, by contrast, directly benefits insured employers by eliminat
ing their tort liability for workplace accidents.
12 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Opinion of the Court

be authorized to pursue the larger recoveries successful
tort litigation ordinarily yields. See, e.g., id., §11 (West
2005); W. Va. Code §23–2–8 (Lexis 2005); Lencsis 67.
Further distancing workers’ compensation arrangements
from bargained-for or voluntarily accorded fringe benefits,
nearly all States, with limited exceptions, require employ
ers to participate in their workers’ compensation systems.
See, e.g., Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 820, §305/4 (West 2004);
Minn. Stat. §176.181, subd. 2 (2004); U. S. Dept. of Labor,
Office of Workers’ Compensation, State Workers’ Compen
sation Laws, Table 1: Type of Law and Insurance Re
quirements for Private Employment (2005), available at
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/owcp/stwclaw/tables-pdf/
table1.pdf (as visited June 13, 2006, and available in Clerk
of Court’s case file). An employer who fails to secure the
mandatory coverage is subject to substantial penalties, even
criminal liability. We do not suggest, as the dissent hy
pothesizes, see post, at 6–7, that a compensation carrier
would gain §507(a)(5) priority for unpaid premiums in States
where workers’ compensation coverage is elective. Nor do we
suggest that wage surrogates or supplements, e.g., pension
and health benefits plans, would lose protection under
§507(a)(5) if a State were to mandate them. We simply
count it a factor relevant to our assessment that States
overwhelmingly prescribe and regulate insurance coverage
for on-the-job accidents, while commonly leaving pension,
health, and life insurance plans to private ordering.7
——————
7 Saco Local Development Corp., 711 F. 2d, at 448–449, we note, is not

at odds with our conclusion that unpaid workers’ compensation premi
ums do not qualify for priority status. The First Circuit held in Saco
that a group life, health, and disability insurance plan fit within
§507(a)(5), though the benefit package was unilaterally provided by the
employer, and not installed pursuant to collective bargaining. Wage
surrogates, then-Judge Breyer explained, need not be negotiated to
qualify under §507(a)(5) as “employee benefit plans,” for “Congress’
object in enacting [that subsection] was to extend the 1898 Act’s wage
priority to new forms of compensation, such as insurance and other
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 13

Opinion of the Court

We note that when the Fourth Circuit confronted a claim
for workers’ compensation premiums owed not to a private
insurer but to a state fund, that court ranked the premiums
as “excise taxes” qualifying for bankruptcy priority under
what is now §507(a)(8)(E). See New Neighborhoods, Inc. v.
West Virginia Workers’ Comp. Fund, 886 F. 2d 714, 718–
720 (1989).8 See also In re Suburban Motor Freight, Inc.,
998 F. 2d 338, 342 (CA6 1993) (“Where a State ‘compel[s]
the payment’ of ‘involuntary exactions, regardless of name,’
and where such payment is universally applicable to simi
larly situated persons or firms, these payments are taxes
for bankruptcy purposes.” (quoting New Neighborhoods,
886 F. 2d, at 718–719 (alteration and citations omitted in
original))); LeRoy et al., Workers’ Compensation in Bank
ruptcy: How Do the Parties Fare? 24 Tort & Ins. L. J. 593,
623–624 (1989) (describing disagreement among courts on
whether payments to state-run workers’ compensation
funds qualify as excise taxes under §507(a)(8)). We express
no view on the §507(a)(8)(E) issue presented in New
Neighborhoods. We venture only this observation: It is
common for Congress to prefer Government creditors over
private creditors, see Birmingham-Nashville Express, 224
F. 3d, at 517–518; it would be anomalous, however, to
advance Zurich’s claim to level (a)(5) while leaving state-
fund creditors at level (a)(8).
Zurich argues that according its claim an (a)(5) priority
will give workers’ compensation carriers an incentive to

——————
fringe benefits.” Id., at 449. Saco did not involve workers’ compensa
tion regimes, and the First Circuit expressed no opinion on them.
8 The state fund in New Neighborhoods, it appears, did not urge that

claims for unpaid workers’ compensation premiums qualify for the
higher (a)(5) priority. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion in that case, how
ever, suggests that the court assumed a private compensation carrier
would be accorded no priority. See 886 F. 2d, at 720 (under court’s
holding, “a state agency is given, as an insurer, priority in bankruptcy
when a private insurer is not”).
14 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Opinion of the Court

continue coverage of a failing enterprise, thus promoting
rehabilitation of the business. It may be doubted whether
the projected incentive would outweigh competing financial
pressure to pull the plug swiftly on an insolvent policy
holder, and thereby contain potential losses. An insurer
undertakes to pay the scheduled benefits to workers injured
on the job while the policy is in effect. In the case of serious
injuries, however, benefits may remain payable years after
termination of coverage. See 1 Larson & Larson §§10.02–
10.03, at 10–3 to 10–7; Lencsis 51–52. While cancellation
relieves the insurer from responsibility for future injuries,
the insurer cannot escape the obligation to continue paying
benefits for enduring maladies or disabilities, even though
no premiums are paid by the former policyholder. An
insurer would likely weigh in the balance the risk of incur
ring fresh obligations of long duration were it to continue
insuring employers unable to pay currently for coverage.
That consideration might well be controlling even with an
assurance of priority status, for there is no guarantee that
creditors accorded preferred positions will in fact be paid.
See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31–32 (“[A]s soon as they smell bank
ruptcy, they’re going to pull the plug anyway.” (SCALIA, J.));
LeRoy, supra, at 596 (noting “general reluctance on the
part of private insurers to provide debtors with the neces
sary Workers’ Compensation coverage”).
Rather than speculating on how workers’ compensation
insurers might react were they to be granted an (a)(5)
priority, we are guided in reaching our decision by the
equal distribution objective underlying the Bankruptcy
Code, and the corollary principle that provisions allowing
preferences must be tightly construed. See Kothe, 280
U. S., at 227 (“The broad purpose of the Bankruptcy Act is
to bring about an equitable distribution of the bankrupt’s
estate . . . .”); Nathanson, 344 U. S., at 29 (“The theme of
the Bankruptcy Act is ‘equality of distribution’, . . . and if
one claimant is to be preferred over others, the purpose
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 15

Opinion of the Court

should be clear from the statute.” (quoting Sampsell v.
Imperial Paper & Color Corp., 313 U. S. 215, 219 (1941)));
H. R. Rep., at 186; 2 Collier Bankruptcy Manual ¶507.01,
p. 507–4 (rev. 3d ed. 2005) (“[P]riorities under the Code
are to be narrowly construed.”).
Every claim granted priority status reduces the funds
available to general unsecured creditors and may diminish
the recovery of other claimants qualifying for equal or
lesser priorities. See Joint Industry Bd., 391 U. S., at 228–
229. “To give priority to a claimant not clearly entitled
thereto is not only inconsistent with the policy of equality of
distribution; it dilutes the value of the priority for those
creditors Congress intended to prefer.” In re Mammoth
Mart, Inc., 536 F. 2d 950, 953 (CA1 1976). Cases like Zu
rich’s are illustrative. The Bankruptcy Code caps the
amount recoverable for contributions to employee benefit
plans. See supra, at 6–7. Opening the (a)(5) priority to
workers’ compensation carriers could shrink the amount
available to cover unpaid contributions to plans paradig
matically qualifying as wage surrogates, prime among them,
pension and health benefit plans.9
In sum, we find it far from clear that an employer’s
liability to provide workers’ compensation coverage fits the
§507(a)(5) category “contributions to an employee benefit
plan . . . arising from services rendered.” Weighing against
such categorization, workers’ compensation does not com
pensate employees for work performed, but instead, for on-
the-job injuries incurred; workers’ compensation regimes
substitute not for wage payments, but for tort liability.
Any doubt concerning the appropriate characterization, we
conclude, is best resolved in accord with the Bankruptcy
Code’s equal distribution aim. We therefore reject the
——————
9 The dissenting opinion nowhere homes in on the reality that including

amounts owed to workers’ compensation carriers risks diminishing funds
available to cover contributions to workers’ pension and health care plans.
16 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

Opinion of the Court

expanded interpretation Zurich invites. Unless and until
Congress otherwise directs, we hold that carriers’ claims
for unpaid workers’ compensation premiums remain out
side the priority allowed by §507(a)(5).
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed,
and the case is remanded for further proceedings consis
tent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 1

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________

No. 05–128
_________________

HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., ET AL.,

PETITIONERS v. ZURICH AMERICAN

INSURANCE CO.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 15, 2006]

JUSTICE KENNEDY, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and
JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that
payments for workers’ compensation coverage are “contri
butions to an employee benefit plan . . . arising from ser
vices rendered.” 11 U. S. C. A. §507(a)(5) (Supp. 2006). In
reversing that judgment the Court’s opinion relies on the
premise that “statutorily prescribed workers’ compensa
tion regimes do not run exclusively to the employees’
benefit.” Ante, at 2. This rationale, however, does not
suffice to justify the Court’s holding. It does not accord,
moreover, with the text or purpose of the bankruptcy
priority defined in §507(a)(5). These are the main points
of this respectful dissenting opinion.
I
Before commencing a more detailed discussion of the
central issue, certain preliminary matters must be ad
dressed. To begin with, the Court states a background
rule of construction that, when we interpret the Bank
ruptcy Code, “provisions allowing preferences must be
tightly construed.” Ante, at 14. The Court links this rule
with a general objective in the Code for equal distribution.
Ibid. That objective, it is true, is acknowledged by our
2 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

precedents, and we have said that a Code provision must
indicate a clear purpose to prefer one claim over another
before a priority will be found. See Nathanson v. NLRB,
344 U. S. 25, 29 (1952). This is different, though, from
establishing an interpretive principle of strict construction
when the Code addresses priorities, for strict construction
can be in tension with the objective of “equality of distribu
tion for similar creditors.” Small Business Administration
v. McClellan, 364 U. S. 446, 452 (1960). The bankruptcy
priorities, then, should not be read simply to give priorities
to as few creditors as possible. They should be interpreted
in accord with the principle of equal treatment of like
claims. In any event the priority provisions should not be
read so narrowly as to conflict with their plain meaning.
In accord with these principles the Court does not seem
to dispute that the payments at issue here are “contribu
tions” that “aris[e] from services rendered,” §507(a)(5).
There seems little doubt that both these statutory re
quirements are met. Petitioner Howard Delivery Service,
Inc. (Howard), argues that a contribution must be volun
tary; and it says that because the workers’ compensation
payments in this case are mandatory, they cannot be
contributions. In some situations—for example, in dis
cussing charitable contributions—it is possible to read
“contributions” as Howard suggests. See Webster’s Third
New International Dictionary 496 (1971) (defining “contri
bution” as “a sum or thing voluntarily contributed”). In
the context of employer payments, however, the volun
tariness requirement does not accord with the usual
meaning of the word. See ibid. (defining “contribution”
alternatively as “a sum paid by an employer to an unem
ployment or group-insurance fund”). Many federal stat
utes and this Court’s own cases expressly refer to “manda
tory contributions” when discussing payments by
employers and employees. See, e.g., 26 U. S. C.
§411(a)(3)(D); 29 U. S. C. §1053(a)(3)(D); §1054(c)(2)(C);
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 3

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

§1344; Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 435
(1999); General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsyl
vania, 458 U. S. 375, 394 (1982); United States v. Lee, 455
U. S. 252, 258 (1982). Even for pension and health benefit
plans, which undeniably fall within the §507(a)(5) priority,
the payments are rarely if ever voluntary in the charitable
sense that Howard invokes. The mandatory nature of most
workers’ compensation coverage, then, fails to establish that
the payments are not contributions.
Howard’s argument that the workers’ compensation
payments here do not “aris[e] from services rendered,”
§507(a)(5), is also unpersuasive. This phrase, according to
Howard, does not cover payments to insurance companies
because those payments are made in exchange for the
services of the insurance company, not the services of the
employees. The Court seems to accept that insurance
payments can receive the priority, see ante, at 5–6, 9, and
this is part of the statute’s necessary operation. Even if
the payments may go to the insurance company, they are
predicated nonetheless on the employees’ performing
services for the employer. They therefore “aris[e] from
services rendered” in the same manner as do payments to
a pension, health, or disability plan. From a practical
standpoint, moreover, “[t]o allow the insurer to obtain its
premiums through the priority would seem the surest way
to provide the employees with the policy benefits to which
they are entitled.” In re Saco Local Development Corp.,
711 F. 2d 441, 449 (CA1 1983) (majority opinion by
Breyer, J.).
II
The question that remains—and my main point of dis
agreement with the Court—is whether workers’ compen
sation insurance qualifies as an “employee benefit plan.”
The answer, one would think, depends on whether work
ers’ compensation plans provide benefits to employees. It
4 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

is clear that they do, as the employer’s contributions en
able the insurer to give out substantial payments to em
ployees.
Even assuming that the benefit the employer provides
must be a net benefit, this condition is easily satisfied. It
is true that, in return for receiving workers’ compensation,
employees give up some of the common-law tort remedies
they otherwise could have pursued. See ante, at 9–11.
The common-law remedies, though, typically required the
employer to be at fault; and they were further limited by
the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of
risk, and the fellow-servant doctrine. See 1 A. Larson & L.
Larson, Workers’ Compensation Law §2.03 (2005). As a
result, only a small percentage of injured workers received
any recovery. Ibid. Workers’ compensation plans, even
considering the tort claims relinquished, thus are gener
ally a benefit to employees. See id., §2.03, at 2–6 (noting
the “helplessness which characterized the position of the
injured worker of the precompensation era”). Even where
an employee might have received greater damages in a
tort suit, the greater speed and certainty of payment in
workers’ compensation is often worth the trade-off. In
many States, moreover, the employee has a choice to opt
out of the workers’ compensation system, leaving him or
her with traditional tort remedies. See, e.g., Ariz. Rev.
Stat. Ann. §23–906 (West 1995); Cal. Lab. Code Ann.
§4154 (West 2003); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §342.395 (West
2005); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 152, §24 (West 2005); N. D.
Cent. Code Ann. §65–07.1–03 (Lexis 2003); Pa. Stat. Ann.
Tit. 77, §1402(b) (Purdon 2002); R. I. Gen. Laws §28–29–
17 (Supp. 2005). When the employee chooses workers’
compensation, it plainly should be considered a benefit.
For these reasons, workers’ compensation plans, on the
whole, are a benefit to employees; and indeed, the Court
does not suggest otherwise.
Instead, the Court holds that workers’ compensation is
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 5

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

not an “employee benefit plan” largely because it also
benefits employers. Ante, at 10–11. The text of the stat
ute does not refer to whether the plan benefits employers,
nor would it make sense to do so. Since the goal of the
priority is to protect the benefits of employees, there is
little reason to suppose that employees should lose that
protection based on the additional fact that employers may
gain something as well. Employers rarely make large
payments to employee funds out of altruism, and surely
the Court should not hold that employee benefits provide
no benefit to the employer. In the case of health benefits,
for example, the employer may receive tax breaks, good
will, a healthy work force, and the leverage to pay lower
wages. Workers’ compensation cannot be distinguished on
this basis from pension, health, or disability plans, all of
which the Court recognizes as covered by the priority.
The Court’s three other bases for treating workers’
compensation differently also find no support in the Bank
ruptcy Code. First, the Court maintains, based on the
purpose and structure of the “employee benefit plan”
priority in relation to the wage priority of §507(a)(4), that
only wage substitutes are covered. Ante, at 5–7. Even
assuming this proposition were correct, it would not lead
to the Court’s conclusion. That is because workers’ com
pensation plans, as a matter of economic realities, are
wage substitutes. The Court made this precise point in
one of the first cases addressing a workers’ compensation
scheme: “[J]ust as the employee’s assumption of ordinary
risks at common law presumably was taken into account
in fixing the rate of wages, so the fixed responsibility of
the employer, and the modified assumption of risk by the
employee under the new system, presumably will be re
flected in the wage scale.” New York Central R. Co. v.
White, 243 U. S. 188, 201–202 (1917). Recent empirical
studies confirm that employers pass on the cost of workers’
compensation to employees in the form of lower wages. See
6 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

Fishback & Kantor, Did Workers Pay for the Passage of
Workers’ Compensation Laws? 110 Quarterly Journal of
Econ. 713 (1995); Gruber & Krueger, The Incidence of
Mandated Employer-Provided Insurance: Lessons from
Workers’ Compensation Insurance, 5 Tax Policy and the
Economy 111 (D. Bradford ed. 1991); Viscusi & Moore,
Workers’ Compensation: Wage Effects, Benefit Inadequa
cies, and the Value of Health Losses, 69 Review of Econ.
and Stats. 249 (1987).
Second, the mandatory nature of most workers’ compen
sation plans does not change the applicability of the prior
ity. The benefit to employees is real and significant re
gardless of whether the government has mandated the
benefit. While States generally “prescribe and regulate”
workers’ compensation and leave other benefits “to private
ordering,” ante, at 12, the presence of bargaining has no
bearing on whether contributions should receive priority.
See Saco, 711 F. 2d, at 448–449. Indeed, it is difficult to
imagine that if States began to mandate other kinds of
benefits, those benefits would promptly fall outside
§507(a)(5). This would amount to saying that when-
ever some form of protection for employees comes to
be accepted as so necessary for their welfare that it is
mandated as an employer responsibility it is no longer a
benefit.
While the Court says the general practice among the
States of making workers’ compensation mandatory is just
one factor in the analysis, ante, at 12, presumably the
Court does not suggest that an optional workers’ compen
sation scheme is an “employee benefit plan” simply be
cause other States have mandatory schemes. Assuming,
then, that a given optional workers’ compensation scheme
might receive the priority, the Court’s approach will create
uncertainty about application of the priority to the rele
vant payments. Only a few States have wholly permissive
regimes, see, e.g., Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §406.002 (West
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 7

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

2006), but many more offer exemptions for particular
kinds of employers, see, e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. §50–6–
106(5) (2005); Mich. Comp. Laws §418.118(2) (1981). Not
only will application of the priority depend on varying
state laws, but also multistate workers’ compensation
plans may have to be segmented for purposes of determin
ing bankruptcy priorities. There is nothing in §507(a)(5)
to suggest an intent to cause this kind of disuniformity.
Third, the existence of state funds to compensate em
ployees when their employers fail to provide workers’
compensation benefits has little relevance. Once again, it
is unclear how much weight the Court places on this
factor, and it seems doubtful that the Court would remove
health plans from the priority simply because a State
created a fallback public health system. In any event
state fallback funds do not change the fact that the em
ployer is providing a benefit; a fallback fund simply indi
cates the employee could have received the benefit from
somewhere else. Were it otherwise, pension plans would
also fall outside the priority, since it appears they must
provide benefits even if the employer has defaulted on its
contributions. See Central States, Southeast & Southwest
Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc., 472 U. S.
559, 567, n. 7 (1985) (citing Department of Labor advisory
opinion). As a practical matter, moreover, most large
multiemployer plans effectively guarantee compensation
(unless all the employers happen to go bankrupt at the
same time), and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corpora
tion ensures payment of at least some of the promised
benefits. The exclusion of these plans from the priority,
however, would accord with neither the text of the provi
sion nor the common sense notion that protecting the
insurer—whether it be a private company, a multiem
ployer plan, or a government fund—is the best way to
protect the employees. See Saco, supra, at 449. Simply
put, harm to the insurer will be passed along to the em
8 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

ployees, either by rendering the insurer unable to pay or
causing it to charge higher rates for the same coverage.
Finally, even if the language of §507(a)(5) were ambigu
ous, the definition of “employee benefit plan” in the Em
ployee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001 et seq. (2000
ed. and Supp. III), would lend considerable support to
respondent’s view. ERISA defines “employee benefit plan”
as including an “employee welfare benefit plan,” §1002(3),
which in turn “mean[s] any plan, fund, or program which
. . . was established or is maintained for the purpose of
providing for its participants or their beneficiaries,
through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, . . . bene
fits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or
unemployment,” §1002(1). The definition of a term in one
statute does not necessarily control the interpretation of
that term in another statute, for where the purposes or
contexts are different the terms may take on different
meanings. See United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabrica
tors of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 219–224 (1996). Where no
conflicting purpose or context is apparent, though, other
statutes may provide at least some evidence of Congress’
understanding. See Securities Industry Assn. v. Board of
Governors, FRS, 468 U. S. 137, 150–151 (1984); see also
ante, at 9.
The ERISA definition is of particular relevance here
given that “employee benefit plan” is not a generic phrase
but something closer to a term of art, with a meaning that
seems unlikely to change based on statutory context. Also,
neither Howard nor the Court cites any source for a defini
tion of “employee benefit plan” that would exclude work
ers’ compensation. The Court attempts to minimize the
significance of the ERISA definition by noting that ERISA
exempts from its coverage any plan “maintained solely for
the purpose of complying with applicable workmen’s com
pensation laws.” §1003(b)(3); see ante, at 9. Congress
 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006) 9

KENNEDY, J., dissenting

exempted these plans from coverage, but it did not exclude
them from its definition, and this is the relevant consid
eration. Indeed, the language of the exclusion confirms
that workers’ compensation is an employee benefit plan.
See §1003(b) (“The provisions of this subchapter shall not
apply to any employee benefit plan if . . . such plan is
maintained solely for the purpose of complying with appli
cable workmen’s compensation laws”). The exemption also
belies the Court’s position because it shows that manda
tory workers’ compensation plans were not included in the
definition for any purpose particular to ERISA. Instead,
since they were exempted from coverage, the most plausi
ble reason for their inclusion (only to be then excluded) is
that Congress was simply giving the ordinary definition of
the term. There is no indication in §507(a)(5) that Con
gress chose to depart from that ordinary definition. By
contrast, when Congress wanted a particular provision of
the Bankruptcy Code to narrow the ordinary definition to
exclude mandatory workers’ compensation, it did so ex
pressly by referring to those plans covered by ERISA. See
11 U. S. C. A. §541(b)(7) (Supp. 2006).
An “employee benefit plan,” whether viewed as a term of
art or in accordance with its plain meaning, includes
workers’ compensation. These are the reasons for my
respectful dissent.