Eger v. E.I. Du Pont DeNemours Co.
110 N.J. 133, 539 A.2d 1213, 1988 N.J. LEXIS 33 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an injured employee of a subcontractor seeks to bring a tort action against a general contractor, a New Jersey court will apply the workers' compensation laws of the state with the greatest governmental interest in the issue, honoring an exclusive remedy provision of a foreign state's statute if that state's interest in its comprehensive compensation scheme and the fundamental 'quid pro quo' of workers' compensation outweighs New Jersey's interest in allowing additional damages or employer reimbursement.
Facts:
- Clifford Eger, a New Jersey resident, worked as a draftsman for Allstates Design and Development Co., Inc. (Allstates), a New Jersey corporation, from 1964 until 1983.
- E.I. du Pont DeNemours & Co. (Du Pont) hired Allstates as a subcontractor to provide services for Du Pont’s operation of the Savannah River Nuclear Plant, a U.S. Department of Energy facility in South Carolina.
- On various occasions over his nineteen-year employment, Eger was sent to the Savannah River facility to perform tasks related to developing designs for Du Pont.
- Plaintiffs allege that on one or more of his trips to the Savannah River facility, Eger was exposed to radioactivity that caused him to contract acute myeloblastic leukemia.
- Eger left Allstates in July 1983 due to his illness.
Procedural Posture:
- In March 1983, Clifford Eger filed a workers’ compensation action in New Jersey against Allstates.
- In April 1984, Eger and his wife, Mildred, brought a third-party tort action against Du Pont, Allstates, the hospital and doctors responsible for Du Pont’s screening program, and various chemical companies.
- The plaintiffs subsequently dismissed without prejudice the common-law actions against Allstates and the chemical companies.
- Du Pont moved for summary judgment in the Law Division, claiming immunity from common-law tort liability as a statutory employer under the South Carolina workers' compensation act.
- The Law Division granted Du Pont's motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs (Egers) appealed the ruling, directed to Du Pont only, to the Appellate Division of New Jersey (appellant: Egers, appellee: Du Pont).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling in a per curiam unpublished opinion.
- Plaintiffs (Egers) petitioned for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey (appellant: Egers, appellee: Du Pont), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New Jersey court apply South Carolina's workers' compensation law, which grants immunity from tort liability to a general contractor acting as a statutory employer, thereby barring a tort action by a New Jersey resident employee of a subcontractor against the general contractor, when the injury occurred in South Carolina?
Opinions:
Majority - Handler, J.
Yes, a New Jersey court will apply South Carolina's workers' compensation law, thereby barring the tort action against Du Pont, because South Carolina has the greatest governmental interest in regulating its workplace and compensation system. The Court found significant differences between New Jersey and South Carolina workers' compensation laws: New Jersey holds subcontractors primarily liable and immunizes them, leaving general contractors exposed to tort liability; South Carolina holds both general contractors and subcontractors directly responsible for workers' compensation and immunizes both from tort liability. Applying the 'governmental interest test' established in Wilson v. Faull, which rejected mechanical choice-of-law rules, the Court determined that South Carolina has a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting the welfare of persons working within its borders, regulating workplace safety, and allocating accident costs. South Carolina's scheme requires general contractors like Du Pont to provide primary compensation coverage and in return grants them immunity from tort liability, which is an essential 'quid pro quo' of its comprehensive workers' compensation system. Allowing a tort suit under New Jersey law would undermine this fundamental aspect of South Carolina's statutory scheme. New Jersey's interests in securing additional damages for its residents or providing reimbursement to Allstates (the immediate employer) were deemed not strong enough to outweigh South Carolina's interest, especially since workers' compensation already guarantees basic compensation and the parties can contractually allocate ultimate burdens. This approach aligns with the majority view in conflicts of law for workers' compensation cases and reinforces the precedent set in Wilson v. Faull.
Dissenting - Stein, J.
No, a New Jersey court should not apply South Carolina's workers' compensation law to bar the tort action, because South Carolina's interest in granting immunity to a general contractor whose liability is secondary and contingent is minimal, and New Jersey has a clear and compelling interest in providing adequate redress for its injured domiciliary. The dissent agreed with the governmental interest test but argued that South Carolina's interest in immunizing a general contractor whose compensation liability is a mere 'backstop' (with a statutory right of reimbursement from the subcontractor) is weak. The dissent distinguished Wilson v. Faull, noting that in that case, Pennsylvania law made the general contractor a primary statutory employer without a statutory right of reimbursement, making its immunity more central to its scheme. In contrast, South Carolina's immunity for parties other than the primary employer is not fundamental, as many states (including New Jersey and Delaware) function adequately without granting such expansive immunity to general contractors. On the other side, New Jersey has a strong governmental interest in ensuring its residents receive adequate compensation for negligently inflicted injuries, which workers' compensation benefits, with their fixed ceilings, often do not fully provide. This compelling interest should outweigh South Carolina's 'gratuitous' immunity, especially when the defendant's actual exposure to workers' compensation liability was 'highly theoretical' in this case, given Eger's filing in New Jersey.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and reinforces New Jersey's approach to choice-of-law issues, particularly regarding workers' compensation immunity, by affirming the 'governmental interest test.' It highlights that courts must critically weigh the policies underlying each state's laws, prioritizing a foreign state's comprehensive statutory scheme and its fundamental 'quid pro quo' (benefits for immunity) over a plaintiff's interest in additional tort recovery or an employer's interest in reimbursement. The decision underscores the importance of the nature and centrality of the immunity granted by the foreign state to its compensation system, providing a framework for future conflicts involving statutory employer immunity.
