specially concurring:
I concur in the result of this case. I write separately to observe that its precedential effect should be analyzed with some caution. The majority opinion states the issue presented in general terms, which I fear might be construed too broadly.
The majority opinion states the issue presented to be whether the Commission has jurisdiction to decide whether EBI is liable to Smith. I believe “liability” to be the ultimate issue, encompassing a myriad of questions which are not before the Court in this appeal.
*128The only issue in this case is whether the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction to determine the threshold issue of the existence of coverage. This is all that the Commission considered in its decision below, and this is all that the parties alleged in the appeal to this Court. Stating the case more broadly blurs the focus on this issue, and might lead to mischief if misconstrued.
In deciding this case below, the Commission held that it was compelled to follow Thompson and the Martin cases. Under the rule of these cases, only the courts and not the Commission had jurisdiction to determine the threshold issue of existence of coverage. As is discussed in the majority opinion, the creation, continuation, and termination of coverage are no longer solely collateral issues of common contract law, as was the ruling in Thompson and the Martin cases. All of it is now governed by statutes, the interpretation of which are squarely “questions arising under this law” within I.C. § 72-707. Therefore, the threshold issues pertaining to existence of coverage should rest with the Commission under I.C. § 72-707, even where resolution may include ancillary matters of common contract law.
While this is the result of the majority decision, a broad reading of the rule stated, with the general reference to the ultimate liability of the surety rather than a focus on the threshold issue presented, might lead one to conclude the ruling to be that the Commission now has jurisdiction over every dispute involving a surety, since any dispute would ultimately relate to liability. However, the jurisdiction of the Commission is still limited by I.C. § 72-707 to “questions arising under this law.” There may well arise true collateral disputes involving a surety, not connected to any interpretation of “this law,” which should remain in district court.1 It must be noted that the able counsel who submitted this case were friendly on the precise issue presented, and that the margins of the Commissions’ now expanded jurisdiction have not been tested through adversarial argument and analysis.
To precisely frame the issue presented and decided in this appeal, I would state the rule thus: the Industrial Commission has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine any issue concerning the existence of workers’ compensation coverage for an employee of this state, including issues of common contract law. I concur that Thompson and the Martin cases, insofar as they are inconsistent with this holding, should be expressly overruled. But, I would make clear that the task of further defining the margins of the Commission’s jurisdiction, as it may pertain to other issues which might arise in the determination of a surety’s ultimate liability, is left for another day.
. EBI’s counsel suggests that if EBI is found liable to Smith, it may have a claim for indemnification against O/P Transportation for failing to disclose the Idaho employees. Whether such claim would be for the Commission under Brooks or remain with the courts under Thompson is clearly not before the Court in this case.