Wolf v. Scott Wetzel Services, Inc.
782 P.2d 203, 113 Wash. 2d 665, 1989 Wash. LEXIS 132 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Industrial Insurance Act's exclusive remedy provisions bar an employee from bringing a separate civil lawsuit against a self-insured employer's claims administrator for wrongful delay or termination of benefits. The employee's sole remedy for such conduct is the penalty provision within the Act itself, unless the administrator's conduct rises to the level of the tort of outrage.
Facts:
- On April 27, 1979, Scott Wolf injured his lower back while working as a truck driver for St. Regis Lumber Company.
- St. Regis, a self-insured employer, had contracted with Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. to administer its workers' compensation claims.
- Scott Wetzel Services initially paid Wolf's time loss compensation and medical bills.
- On November 7, 1979, based on a physician's report, Scott Wetzel Services terminated Wolf's time loss compensation.
- In January 1980, Wolf requested payment for psychiatric treatment, suggesting his back injury contributed to psychological problems.
- Scott Wetzel Services denied the request for psychiatric care and recommended that Wolf's claim be closed.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Labor & Industries closed Wolf's claim on February 14, 1980.
- Wolf appealed the Department's order to the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals.
- The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals reversed the Department's order and reopened the claim for all purposes, including psychiatric care.
- Wolf then filed a civil lawsuit against Scott Wetzel Services in Superior Court (trial court), alleging bad faith administration of his claim.
- Scott Wetzel Services moved for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Scott Wetzel Services and dismissed Wolf's lawsuit.
- Wolf, the appellant, then sought direct review of the dismissal in the Supreme Court of Washington, the state's highest court.
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 Industrial Insurance Act bar an employee from bringing a civil action against a company hired by a self-insured employer to administer workers' compensation claims for wrongful delay or termination of benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Andersen, J.
Yes. The Industrial Insurance Act (IIA) provides the exclusive remedy for wrongful delay or termination of workers' compensation benefits, barring separate civil actions. The IIA reflects a 'quid pro quo' compromise where employees receive sure and certain relief in exchange for giving up their right to sue in court. The court reasoned that since the IIA contains a specific statutory penalty (RCW 51.48.017) for unreasonable delay or refusal to pay benefits, the Legislature intended for such disputes to be resolved within the workers' compensation system, not through separate tort actions. Allowing a suit against a third-party claims administrator would vitiate the policy of the IIA, as the administrator acts as the 'alter ego' of the employer and is therefore covered by the same immunity. The court distinguished this from cases like employment discrimination where the IIA provides no remedy, and it carved out a narrow exception for conduct that meets the high standard for the tort of outrage, which was not present here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the comprehensive and exclusive nature of the workers' compensation system in Washington. By extending the employer's tort immunity to third-party claims administrators, the court prevented the creation of a significant loophole that could have undermined the 'grand compromise' of the Industrial Insurance Act. The ruling channels nearly all disputes over claim handling, short of truly outrageous conduct, back into the administrative framework, promoting efficiency and predictability. This precedent makes it very difficult for claimants to succeed on 'bad faith' tort claims against insurers or administrators, requiring them to use the statutory penalty provisions as their primary recourse.
