Taft v. Brinley's Grading Services, Inc.
34 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1844, 738 S.E.2d 741, 225 N.C. App. 502 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A wrongful death lawsuit against a company is not barred by the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision at the summary judgment stage if genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the deceased's status as a 'special employee.' Explicit contractual language vesting control and defining the employment relationship with the general employer is sufficient to create such a factual dispute.
Facts:
- Michael Wayne Paul, Jr. was an employee of Pro-Tech Management & Equipment Services, Inc. ('Pro-Tech').
- Pro-Tech supplied workers, including Paul, to Brinley’s Grading Services, Inc. pursuant to an 'Employee Leasing Agreement'.
- The agreement stated that leased personnel were 'employees of Pro-Tech and only Pro-Tech' and that Pro-Tech retained 'ultimate control' over supervision and other personnel matters.
- On February 14, 2008, Paul was working at Brinley's Grading's facility, standing beside a large commercial trailer to load it.
- Ismael Dominguez, an employee of Brinley's Grading, started a company pickup truck that was facing the trailer.
- Dominguez 'popped the clutch,' causing the truck to lunge forward and pin Paul between the truck's bumper and the trailer.
- Paul sustained injuries from the collision that led to his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna W. Taft, as administratrix for the Estate of Michael Wayne Paul, Jr., filed a wrongful death action in a North Carolina trial court against Brinley’s Grading Services, Inc. and its president, Thomas E. Brinley, Sr.
- Brinley's Grading and Mr. Brinley filed separate motions for summary judgment, arguing among other things that the lawsuit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act because Paul was a 'special employee.'
- The trial court granted both motions for summary judgment, dismissing the claims against Brinley's Grading and Mr. Brinley.
- Taft (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the trial court's orders granting summary judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
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 the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act bar a wrongful death lawsuit against a company when a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the deceased worker, who was leased from another firm under a contract specifying the leasing firm retained control, was a 'special employee' of that company?
Opinions:
Majority - Geer, Judge
No. The exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act does not bar the lawsuit at the summary judgment stage because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the deceased was a 'special employee' of the defendant. The court applied a three-prong test to determine if Paul was a special employee of Brinley's Grading: (1) a contract of hire with the special employer; (2) the work being done is essentially that of the special employer; and (3) the special employer has the right to control the details of the work. The court found that factual disputes existed regarding the first and third prongs. The 'Employee Leasing Agreement' explicitly stated Paul was an employee of 'Pro-Tech and only Pro-Tech,' which creates a factual issue for the first prong. Similarly, the agreement vested 'ultimate control' over supervision with Pro-Tech, creating a factual dispute for the third prong. Citing Shelton v. Steelcase, Inc., the court held that a party cannot obtain summary judgment by ignoring the explicit terms of its own contract. Therefore, the question of Paul's employment status must be decided by a jury, and the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Brinley's Grading was reversed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant weight given to explicit contractual terms in 'special employment' disputes. It demonstrates that a defendant cannot easily secure summary judgment by arguing a worker was a de facto employee when a written agreement designates another entity as the sole employer and vests control in that entity. The ruling serves as a strong precedent that such contractual language is typically sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, pushing the determination to a jury. This outcome makes it more difficult for companies using leased or temporary employees to use the workers' compensation exclusivity shield to dismiss tort claims early in litigation, emphasizing the importance of carefully drafted leasing agreements.
