OPINION
This appeal was taken from an order dismissing a tort claim by the administrator of the estate of Thomas Cruz, who was injured while employed by the defendant Williams. The trial court held that the tort claim was barred by the Workmen’s Compensation Act and dismissed the claim with prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed. Montano v. Williams, 89 N.M. 86, 547 P.2d 569 (Ct.App.1976). We granted certiorari.
The plaintiff brought suit for the wrongful death of Thomas Cruz. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that since Williams substantially complied with the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1 a common law suit in tort was barred. The defendant *253failed to file a policy of insurance, a certificate of proof thereof, a security bond, or a certificate of self-insurance with the clerk of the district court as required by § 59-10-3, N.M.S.A.1953 2 In fact, the defendant never filed anything with the district court clerk, although he did have an insurance policy with Universal Underwriters that supposedly covered the decedent. In addition, certain funeral benefits were paid by Universal to the estate, but a copy of the policy has never been produced, and compliance with § 59-10-3 has never even been attempted by Williams.
The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, perhaps on the grounds that strict compliance with the Workmen’s Compensation Act was required. They stated:
The failure of an employer to' comply in any way constitutes a violation of the Act and subjects him to a claim for negligence by an employee, (emphasis added).
Our concern with the opinion of the Court of Appeals stems from the quoted statement, particularly the emphasized portion. We do not know whati it means. The Court of Appeals may have meant that failure by the employer to comply with any of the alternative methods prescribed by § 59-10-3 (the Court of Appeals enumerated three; actually there are four) would permit the successful prosecution of a common law tort action. With this we would agree. The Court of Appeals could have meant that “any” failure of compliance with the statute, even an inconsequential, nonprejudicial or unsubstantial one, would permit maintenance of a common law action. If this was intended, we do not agree.
In any case, the quoted statement is misleading and could be read as changing the standard previously expressed in New Mexico. If an employer substantially complies with the Act, then an injured employee’s common law remedies are foreclosed. Mirabal v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp., 77 N.M. 576, 425 P.2d 740 (1967); Quintana v. Nolan Bros., Inc., 80 N.M. 589, 458 P.2d 841 (Ct.App.1969). In Mirabal the employer filed his insurance policy forty days after the claimant was injured. The filing was thus not in strict compliance with the statute, but it was substantial enough to foreclose a tort action by the employee against the employer. In Quintana the policy was filed seventy-six days after the accident, and this late filing was also held to be substantial compliance. The standard in New Mexico for foreclosure of an employee’s common law remedies is whether the employer has substantially complied with the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Strict compliance is not necessary.
The defendant Williams did not substantially comply with the Act. He neither filed the policy or proof of it nor made any other attempt to comply with § 59-10-3, N.M.S.A.1953. There was not even minimal compliance, much less substantial compliance.
*254The result reached by the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The trial court’s order dismissing the tort claim is reversed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
OMAN, C. J., and McMANUS, MONTOYA and SOSA, JJ., concur.