Defendant Driver Was “Borrowed” Co-Employee and Immune From Suit. In a declaratory judgment action to determine if an automobile liability insurance company was required to defend its insured against an...
NC Auto Insurer Need Not Defend Wrongful Death Action NC Auto Insurer Need Not Defend Wrongful Death ActionIn a decision discussing several employment-related law issues, a New Jersey appellate court held, in relevant part, that a bodily injury claim arising from an employer’s failure to accommodate allegation...
NJ Diabetic Teacher’s Failure to Accommodate Claim Not Barred by Exclusivity NJ Diabetic Teacher’s Failure to Accommodate Claim Not Barred by ExclusivityEarlier today, the Supreme Court of Connecticut released a decision holding that a widow’s bystander emotional distress action filed against her deceased husband’s employer is barred by the exclusive remedy...
Connecticut High Court: Widow’s Bystander Emotional Distress Action Barred by Exclusivity Connecticut High Court: Widow’s Bystander Emotional Distress Action Barred by ExclusivityIn an unpublished decision, Elster v. Fishman, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5158 (July 22, 2013) [check Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a) regarding rules related to citation], a California...
California: Legal Secretary’s IIED Claim Against Attorney and Firm Related to Pornographic Emails May Proceed California: Legal Secretary’s IIED Claim Against Attorney and Firm Related to Pornographic Emails May ProceedThe Supreme Court of Nebraska recently affirmed a decision of a county district court that had dismissed a tort action filed against the defendant-employer by the estate of an employee...
Nebraska: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed Against Employer That Violated Multiple OSHA Regulations; Action Barred by Exclusive Remedy Defense Nebraska: High Court Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed Against Employer That Violated Multiple OSHA Regulations; Action Barred by Exclusive Remedy DefenseAnswering a question certified to it by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, in Mendenall v. Anderson Hardwood Floors, Inc.,...
South Carolina: Supreme Court Adopts Larson’s “Dual Persona” Doctrine South Carolina: Supreme Court Adopts Larson’s “Dual Persona” DoctrineOn Tuesday, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed a trial court’s order granting various defendants’ motions for summary judgment on exclusivity grounds in a wrongful death action filed...
North Carolina: Intentional Tort Action Against Wal-Mart Related to Death of Wal-Mart “Greeter” Barred by Exclusivity North Carolina: Intentional Tort Action Against Wal-Mart Related to Death of Wal-Mart “Greeter” Barred by ExclusivityIn what will likely be one of the last cases to be heard under Oklahoma’s court-crafted version of the “substantially certain” rule [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 103.04[2][e]] that...
Oklahoma: Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals in “Substantially Certain” Case Oklahoma: Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals in “Substantially Certain” CaseAs observed by Dr. Larson, the exclusiveness defense is part of the quid pro quo by which “the sacrifices and gains of employees and employers are to some extent put...
Iowa: Lack of “Adequate” Remedy Does Not Mean Exclusive Remedy Provision May Be Circumvented Iowa: Lack of “Adequate” Remedy Does Not Mean Exclusive Remedy Provision May Be CircumventedIn the vast majority of states, non-dependent relatives of employees who suffer fatal work-related injuries are caught in a Catch-22. Since most state acts limit workers’ compensation death benefits to...
Virginia: Non-Dependent Relative of Deceased Worker Caught in Catch-22 Virginia: Non-Dependent Relative of Deceased Worker Caught in Catch-22An important exception to the exclusive remedy rule relates to intentional injury inflicted by the employer on an employee. Several legal theories have been advanced to support the exception. The...
US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers US: 2010 Statutory Amendment Spelled “Certain” Demise of Oklahoma’s “Substantially Certain” Rule in Intentional Injury Actions Against Employers