LaBelle v. Crepeau
| Decision Date | 11 July 1991 |
| Citation | 593 A.2d 653 |
| Parties | Maurice LaBELLE v. Raymond CREPEAU. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Randall E. Smith (orally), Smith & Elliott, Saco, for plaintiff.
Marshall J. Tinkle (orally), Thompson, McNaboe, Ashley & Bull, Portland, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, COLLINS, and BRODY, JJ.
Plaintiff Maurice LaBelle was injured, in the course of his employment, while on premises owned by defendant Raymond Crepeau and leased to plaintiff's corporate employer. Plaintiff filed a negligence action against defendant in his capacity as landlord and owner of the premises. He now appeals from a summary judgment entered on his complaint in the Superior Court (York County, Brennan, J.). The court ruled that defendant, who is also the major shareholder, president, and treasurer of the corporate employer, is granted immunity from suit by the Worker's Compensation Act. Plaintiff contends that the immunity afforded by 39 M.R.S.A. § 4 (1989) to a participating employer, its employees, supervisors, officers, and directors does not extend to defendant in his capacity as landlord. We agree and vacate the judgment.
The facts as developed for summary judgment may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff was injured at his place of employment, allegedly due to inhaling paint fumes in an improperly vented paint and body shop. Plaintiff's employer, Crepeau Motors, Inc., leased the building from Raymond and Monica Crepeau, in their individual capacities. Raymond Crepeau owned 98% of the stock in Crepeau Motors, Inc., managed and controlled it, but was not supervising plaintiff at the time of the injury. At all times since 1979, Raymond and Monica Crepeau have leased the building to the corporation claiming the rent paid to them as income and deducting mortgage, depreciation, repairs, and other expenses for the building.
In 1989, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant as landlord for breach of defendant's duty to provide Crepeau Motors, Inc. and its employees with a paint and body shop that was properly ventilated. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that defendant was immune from suit under the Worker's Compensation Act. The court granted summary judgment for defendant, stating "[o]ur Law Court has always taken an expansive view, rather than a restrictive view, of the scope of the immunity afforded under the Worker's Compensation Act." This appeal followed.
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, Levesque v. Chan, 569 A.2d 600, 601 (Me.1990) (quoting Lidstone v. Green, 469 A.2d 843, 845 (Me.1983)).
The Maine Worker's Compensation Act exempts the employer "who has secured the payment of compensation ..." from civil actions either at common law or otherwise involving injuries sustained by an employee "arising out of or in the course of" his or her employment. 39 M.R.S.A. § 4 (1989). In 1979, the exemption from actions was extended to include "all employees, supervisors, officers, and directors of the employer for any personal injuries arising out of and in the course of employment." Id. The Act preserves actions an injured worker may have against third party tortfeasors. 39 M.R.S.A. § 68 (1989).
Whether the immunity provided by section 4 extends to an officer or fellow employee when that person is acting in a separate and distinct capacity has not previously been presented in Maine. Our analysis must begin with the basic proposition that a corporation is a separate legal entity. Anderson v. Kennebec River Pulp and Paper, 433 A.2d 752, 756 n. 5 (Me.1981). Under Maine law, a corporation has the power to sue or be sued, lease or own property, and employ people to carry out its business. 13-A M.R.S.A. § 202 (1981). One of the principal benefits offered by the corporate form of organization is limited liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Thompson
...of both, and thereby defeat defendant's claim of immunity.... (Citation omitted.) Miller, at 760, 432 N.W.2d 429. In LaBelle v. Crepeau, 593 A.2d 653 (Me.1991), the trial court ruled that the defendant, who was also the major shareholder, president, and treasurer of the corporate employer, ......
-
Danco, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...were a sham, Guiliani could take advantage of a sham he had created to assert Danco's rights as a plaintiff, see LaBelle v. Crepeau, 593 A.2d 653, 655 (Me.1991).6 Smith was a section 1983 case, but the same standard has been applied by this court and others under section 1981, e.g., Rowlett......
-
Lind v. Barnes Tag Agency, Inc., Case Number: 115130
...was not immune from suit under workers' compensation law due to its status as a legal third party.¶ 19 Similarly, in LaBelle v. Crepeau , 593 A.2d 653, 655 (Maine 1991), the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine determined that a shareholder of an employer could be sued as a third party for claim......
-
Luker v. State Tax Assessor.
...cf. Theberge v. Darbro, Inc., 684 A.2d 1298, 1301 (Me.1996) (stating that a corporation is a separate legal entity); LaBelle v. Crepeau, 593 A.2d 653, 655 (Me.1991) (same). A taxpayer cannot minimize or avoid taxation solely by creating a separate taxable entity to receive income, however, ......
-
Employer Liability Under the Third Party Provision of the Washington Industrial Insurance Act: the Dual Capacity and Dual Persona Doctrines in Evans v. Thompson
...on which the accident occurred, and (2) leased the premises to the corporation of which he was the president); Labelle v. Crepeau, 593 A.2d 653, 655 (Me. 1991) (holding that a defendant landowner may be sued in his individual capacity as landowner regardless of his role as shareholder, pres......