 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buck v. Freeman12/12/2000
n's motion for summary judgment, holding that the workers' compensation act (WCA) was the exclusive remedy against the employer. Buck also sued Freeman's compensation insurer, the Minnesota Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Plan and its related insurers and administrators (MWCARP or insurers) in negligence based on the failure to inspect Freeman's premises as required by Minn. Stat. § 79.253, subd. 2 (1998). The district court dismissed the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the insurers were immune from suit under Minn. Stat. § 176.031 (1998). The district court further held that Minn. Stat. § 79.253, subd. 2, does not create a private cause of action for failure to inspect. An amended judgment was entered April 4, 2000, pursuant to a stipulation under Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02.
ISSUES
1. Is an employer who performs workplace duties subject to liability as a co-employee, or does the workers' compensation act provide the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries and fatalities?
2. Are compensation insurers subject to negligence liability or are they protected by the exclusive remedy provisions of Minn. Stat. § 176.031 (1998)?
3. Does Minn. Stat. § 79.253, subd. 2 (1998), create a private cause of action against compensation insurers?
ANALYSIS
On appeal from summary judgment, we review the record to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in applying the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn. 1990). We "must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted." Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993).
1. Liability of Employer as Grossly Negligent Co-employee
The exclusive remedy of employees against an employer for injuries sustained in workplace accidents is found within the WCA. Minn. Stat. § 176.031 (1998). This statute guaranteed decedent compensation for any injuries sustained at work and, in exchange, she forfeited her common law rights against Freeman. See Wicken v. Morris, 527 N.W.2d 95, 99 (Minn. 1995) (describing the reciprocal concessions made by employer and employees under the WCA). On the other hand, an employee may be held liable for the personal injuries of a co-employee if the injury is a result of gross negligence or intentional act. Minn. Stat. § 176.061, subd. 5(c) (1998); Dawley v. Thisius, 304 Minn. 453, 456, 231 N.W.2d 555, 557 (1975).
Buck argues that "immunity attaches to conduct not status," and, therefore, in participating in the activities of a co-employee, Freeman is subject to liability in the same manner as a co-employee. No statute or caselaw directly supports the notion that active performance of duties in the workplace results in abrogation of the employer's immunity under the exclusive remedy provision of the WCA. Cf. Dawley, 304 Minn. at 456, 231 N.W.2d 557-58 (establishing that in limited circumstances an employee may be held liable for gross negligence against a co-employee); Wicken, 527 N.W.2d at 98-99 (manager may be liable as co-employee); Stelling v. Hanson Silo Co., 563 N.W.2d 286, 290 (Minn. App. 1997) (finding a shareholder of a corporation liable as a co-employee). We will not re interpret the WCA to narrow employer immunity protections.
We conclude the district court did not err in holding that Freeman, as decedent's employer, is immune on the negligence claim and is entitled to the protection of the exclusive remedy provisions of the WCA.
2. Dismissal of Action Against MWCARP
A. Insurer's Immunity under Workers' Compensation Act
Buck contends that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|