Pennsylvania Well Owner and Service Provider Were Not Statutory Employers of Truck Driver Making Delivery

In a split decision, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a well owner and another firm that provided well services to the well owner were not the statutory employers of a truck driver who alleged that he sustained injuries in a mishap as he delivered barite to the well [Dobransky v. EQT Prod. Co., 2020 PA Super 189, 2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 671 (Aug. 11, 2020)]. Because he was not their statutory employee, the appellate court held the truck driver could sue both the well owner and the services company for negligence; his tort action was not barred by the exclusive remedy doctrine.

Background

As is the case in a number of other states, a provision in Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act (“the Act”) provides that a “contractor” who subcontracts all or any part of a contract (and its insurer) is liable for the payment of workers’ compensation benefits for the subcontractor’s employees unless that subcontractor has secured workers’ compensation insurance for the injury [Section 302(a) of the Act, codified at 77 P.S. § 461; see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 62.02, et seq.]. Moreover, under the statutory provision, a person who contracts with another to have worker performed consisting of, as relevant here, “the removal, excavation or drilling of soil, rock or minerals,” is deemed to be a contractor and the other person a subcontractor. Statutory employers are immune from tort liability for the subcontractor’s employee’s injuries.

Dobransky Was Injured While Delivering Berite to the Well Site

Here, Dobransky was employed as a truck driver by Northwest Concrete Products, Inc., and in that capacity, delivered a load of barite to a well site owned by EQT Production Company (EQT), to be deposited into special storage tanks placed, owned, and/or maintained by Halliburton Energy Services. Dobransky alleged that he sustained physical injuries while he was delivering the barite to the tanks when the cap of a tank blew off, releasing barite into Dobransky’s face, and onto his person. He filed suit against EQT and Halliburton, alleging negligent operation of the well site and the barite storage facilities at the site.

Trial Court: Defendants Were Statutory Employers

The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they were Dobransky’s statutory employers under § 302(a), and as such, were immune from tort liability. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment based, on the statutory employer defense.

Dobransky appealed, contending in relevant part that a truck driver delivering a single raw material to a well site should not be considered the statutory employee of one whose work consisted of “the removal, excavation, or drilling of soil, rock, or minerals.”

Majority of the Appellate Court Found No Statutory Employer Relationship

The majority of the appellate court agreed, observing in relevant part that the trial court had relied upon Doman v. Atlas America, Inc., 2016 PA Super 233, 150 A.3d 103 (Pa. Super. 2016), a case with somewhat similar facts. The appellate court also noted that the trial court held that Halliburton worked on the EQT well site, that Halliburton had contracted with Dobransky’s direct employer, Northwest Concrete, to provide transportation services, and that under Doman (and § 302(a)) Halliburton was Dobransky’s statutory employer. Moreover, the trial court held that vertical privity extended the statutory employer immunity to EQT, since EQT had a contract with Halliburton.

The majority distinguished the facts of the instant case with those in Doman, stressing that here, the work that Halliburton contracted with Dobransky’s employer was not integrally related to the removal, excavation or drilling of soil, rock or minerals, but rather “for transportation and product-unloading services generally ….” [quoting from Halliburton’s brief, emphasis added by the majority]. Dobransky’s employer did not “remove, excavate, or drill for minerals,” but simply transported and unloaded materials to the site. Accordingly, the majority agreed with Dobransky — the defendants were not his statutory employers — and it vacated the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants.

Justice Bowes Dissented

Justice Bowes dissented. The justice observed that not only did § 302(a) provide for a statutory employer relationship in the specific instance in which the subcontractor was engaged in work related to the removal, excavation, or drilling for minerals, the statute extended the statutory employer framework to any scenario in which an entity contracted work of a kind that was a “regular or recurrent part” of its business. According to the justice, the core of Dobransky’s argument was that he should not be a statutory employee where his employer was not engaged in the same line of work as the defendants. That, said the dissenting justice, was not the issue. Evidence in the record showed that Dobransky’s shipment of barite was “a critical and common part” of the drilling operations [Opinion and dissent, p. 20].