Tag: Exclusive Remedy

Feb 26, 2020

NY Hospital Employee’s Tort Action Against Outside Management Services Company Barred by Exclusive Remedy Doctrine

Where a hospital entered into a contract with a management services company (“the management company”), pursuant to which the management company trained and sometimes supervised the hospital’s “housekeepers,” but where...

NY Hospital Employee’s Tort Action Against Outside Management Services Company Barred by Exclusive Remedy Doctrine NY Hospital Employee’s Tort Action Against Outside Management Services Company Barred by Exclusive Remedy Doctrine
Feb 24, 2020

Missouri Claimants Not Entitled to Statutory “Enhanced Benefit” for Worker’s Mesothelioma

In Missouri, where employers have elected to accept mesothelioma liability pursuant to a special provision of the state Act — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.200.4(3)(a)(2013) — the employer becomes liable...

Missouri Claimants Not Entitled to Statutory “Enhanced Benefit” for Worker’s Mesothelioma Missouri Claimants Not Entitled to Statutory “Enhanced Benefit” for Worker’s Mesothelioma
Jan 30, 2020

No Apportionment of Fault Allowed against Arkansas Employer

Yesterday, an Arkansas appellate court affirmed a finding by a county circuit court that held the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, as amended and codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§...

No Apportionment of Fault Allowed against Arkansas Employer No Apportionment of Fault Allowed against Arkansas Employer
Jan 29, 2020

General Liability Insurer Must Defend In Spite of Fact That Injury Occurred at Workplace

In True North Me. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13941 (Jan. 28, 2020), a federal district court sitting in Maine applied the so-called “comparison test” —...

General Liability Insurer Must Defend In Spite of Fact That Injury Occurred at Workplace General Liability Insurer Must Defend In Spite of Fact That Injury Occurred at Workplace
Jan 21, 2020

War Between the States: Federal Court Decides PA Law Precludes Third-Party Indemnity Action Against Employer

With a conflicting web of state versus state policies that would make any Conflict of Laws professor salivate, a federal district court in Pennsylvania found a choice of law provision...

War Between the States: Federal Court Decides PA Law Precludes Third-Party Indemnity Action Against Employer War Between the States: Federal Court Decides PA Law Precludes Third-Party Indemnity Action Against Employer
Jan 17, 2020

Divided Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed against TN employer

In a split decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an injured Tennessee worker’s intentional tort action against her employer based on the district court’s finding...

Divided Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed against TN employer Divided Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Intentional Tort Action Filed against TN employer
Dec 27, 2019

Idaho High Court Does “a 180”: Employees May Sue Employers for Reckless Conduct

Reversing itself (in relevant part), a divided Supreme Court of Idaho cast aside a year-old decision and, after re-argument, adopted what amounts to a reckless standard in so-called “intentional” tort...

Idaho High Court Does “a 180”: Employees May Sue Employers for Reckless Conduct Idaho High Court Does “a 180”: Employees May Sue Employers for Reckless Conduct
Dec 17, 2019

Federal Court Says Action under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is Not Barred by Exclusivity

In an interesting case that illustrates the tension between some of the recent technological “advances” that purportedly streamline traditional workplace practices, a federal district court yesterday held that a plaintiff’s...

Federal Court Says Action under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is Not Barred by Exclusivity Federal Court Says Action under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is Not Barred by Exclusivity
Dec 9, 2019

Alabama Employer’s Actions After Injury Might Result in Tort Liability

Where an injured worker asserted claims based on additional injuries that he alleged arose from conduct that occurred following his workplace injury (he alleged, inter alia, that after he suffered a...

Alabama Employer’s Actions After Injury Might Result in Tort Liability Alabama Employer’s Actions After Injury Might Result in Tort Liability
Dec 4, 2019

MN High Court Stands Firm: Employer and Third-Party are NOT “Severally Liable” for Employee's Injuries

The 2003 amendment to Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1, did not overturn a line of Minnesota decisions that had concluded that an employer and a third-party tortfeasor were not...

MN High Court Stands Firm: Employer and Third-Party are NOT “Severally Liable” for Employee's Injuries MN High Court Stands Firm: Employer and Third-Party are NOT “Severally Liable” for Employee's Injuries
Dec 3, 2019

$7 Million Verdict Against Iowa Co-Employee Cannot Stand

Construing Iowa’s co-employee immunity statute, Iowa Code § 85.20(2), which allows a co-employee to be sued for injuries caused by the co-employee’s “gross negligence amounting to such lack of care...

$7 Million Verdict Against Iowa Co-Employee Cannot Stand $7 Million Verdict Against Iowa Co-Employee Cannot Stand
Nov 12, 2019

Hospital Worker’s Injuries Exiting Elevator Cannot Support Tort Suit Against Louisiana Employer

Where a hospital worker, who had arrived at her employer’s facility one hour prior to the time she was supposed to clock in (which was her habit), sustained injuries as...

Hospital Worker’s Injuries Exiting Elevator Cannot Support Tort Suit Against Louisiana Employer Hospital Worker’s Injuries Exiting Elevator Cannot Support Tort Suit Against Louisiana Employer