Richardson v. Z&H Constr., LLC
| Decision Date | 20 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 46587 |
| Citation | 167 Idaho 345,470 P.3d 1154 |
| Parties | Michael RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Z & H CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Hernandez Framing, LLC, and Plumbing Unlimited, LLC, Defendants-Respondents, and Zane Shippy, Holly Shippy, John Doe I, Employee of Z & H Construction, LLC; John Doe III, employee of Hernandez Framing, LLC; and John Does VI-X, Defendants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Skaug Law, P.C., Nampa, for appellant. Matthew C. Andrew argued.
Brassey Crawford, PLLC, Boise, for respondent Plumbing Unlimited, LLC. Perkins, Mitchell, Pope & McAllister, LLP, Boise and Clausen Miller, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for respondent Hernandez Framing, LLC. Melinda Kollross argued.
Madsen Beck, PLLC, Meridian, for respondent Z&H Construction, LLC.
This case addresses the scope of co-employee immunity under the Idaho Worker's Compensation Law. Michael Richardson was injured while working and attempted to recover personal injury damages outside of the worker's compensation system. Hayden Homes subcontracted with Z&H Construction, LLC, Plumbing Unlimited, LLC, and Alignment Construction, LLC for various aspects of a new construction project. Richardson was employed by Alignment, and worked on Hayden's construction project. He was injured when he fell through a crawl space cover at the construction site. He received a worker's compensation award from the worker's compensation insurer for his direct employer, Alignment. After Richardson received his worker's compensation award, he sued Z&H, Hernandez Framing, LLC (a subcontractor of Z&H), and Plumbing Unlimited (collectively, the "Respondent LLCs"), alleging negligence in the construction of the crawl space cover. The district court granted the Respondent LLCs' motion for summary judgment, determining that the Respondent LLCs are Richardson's statutory co-employees and immune from suit pursuant to Idaho Code section 72-209(3). We affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment.
In 2015, Hayden Homes, a general contractor and home builder, was constructing residential homes in the Sands Pointe subdivision in Nampa, Idaho. Hayden hired various subcontractors for the construction of a home located at 1503 West Cactus Street (the Property). Hayden hired Alignment for finish carpentry, Z&H for framing work, and Plumbing Unlimited for plumbing work on the Property. Z&H subsequently hired Hernandez as a subcontractor to complete the framing work. Hayden provided the project plans for the Property and managed the overall construction project.
In September 2015, Richardson was working for Alignment on the Property. While Richardson was preparing finishing equipment in the closet of the master bedroom, he stepped over a crawl space cover. The crawl space cover collapsed, causing Richardson to fall into the crawl space. Richardson sustained rib, neck, and spine injuries
, and ultimately required spinal fusion surgery on five vertebrae in his neck. Richardson received worker's compensation benefits through Alignment's worker's compensation insurer.
Hernandez physically performed the framing work on the Property, including the construction of the crawl space cover at issue. Z&H and Hayden both inspected Hernandez's framing work after it was completed. Plumbing Unlimited had access to the Property and crawl space between the time Hernandez completed the framing work and Richardson's accident. Richardson sued Z&H for negligence and negligent supervision. Richardson later amended his complaint to include Hernandez and Plumbing Unlimited as co-defendants. The Fourth Amended Complaint alleged that the Respondent LLCs acted negligently through their "John Doe" employees in building the crawl space and cover.
Hernandez and Z&H filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that Richardson's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Idaho Worker's Compensation Law. Hernandez and Z&H argued that the law provides umbrella-like immunity to all subcontractors under a common statutory employer. Hernandez and Z&H argued that because they were both hired by Hayden—as was Richardson's employer, Alignment—their employees on the jobsite were statutory co-employees of Richardson. Thus, Hernandez and Z&H argued that because Richardson was injured in the scope of his employment and received a worker's compensation award for his injuries, Idaho Code section 72-211, the exclusive remedy provision, bars Richardson's tort claims associated with his workplace injury.
In response to the summary judgment motions, Richardson argued that the Worker's Compensation Law provides immunity in a hierarchical fashion, only insulating contractors and subcontractors from suit if they would be liable to Richardson if his direct employer had failed to carry worker's compensation insurance at the time he was injured. Richardson also argued that the entities Hernandez and Z&H could not be considered employees of Hayden, because only "natural people [are] considered employees for the purposes of the [Worker's Compensation Law]."
After oral argument on the motions, the district court granted summary judgment for Hernandez and Z&H. The district court first noted that under Idaho Code section 72-223(1), statutory employers are immune from liability. Further, the district court explained that the legislature expressly extended statutory employers' immunity from liability to the "employer's surety and to all officers, agents, servants and employees of the employer or surety." The district court relied on this Court's decision in Blake v. Starr , 146 Idaho 847, 851, 203 P.3d 1246, 1250 (2009), which held that the employee of a statutory employer and the employee of the statutory employer's subcontractor are statutory co-employees under Idaho Code section 72-209(3). Accordingly, the district court held that Hernandez, Z&H, and Richardson were statutory co-employees, and granted Hernandez and Z&H summary judgment. The parties subsequently stipulated that the district court's summary judgment order also granted Plumbing Unlimited summary judgment. Thereafter, the district court entered a final judgment, dismissing Richardson's claims with prejudice. Richardson filed a timely notice of appeal.
When this Court reviews a lower court's ruling on a summary judgment motion, this Court applies the same standard of review the lower court utilized in ruling on the motion. Idaho First Bank v. Bridges , 164 Idaho 178, 182, 426 P.3d 1278, 1282 (2018) ; Hansen v. City of Pocatello, 145 Idaho 700, 702, 184 P.3d 206, 208 (2008). Thus, summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bridges, 164 Idaho at 182, 426 P.3d at 1282. Any disputed facts and reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the non-moving party, and the Court freely reviews the questions of law. Id. "This Court exercises free review over statutory interpretation because it presents a question of law." State v. Amstad, 164 Idaho 403, 405, 431 P.3d 238, 240 (2018).
This case requires the Court to consider the scope of tort immunity provided by the Idaho Worker's Compensation Law. The Idaho Worker's Compensation Law is a compromise between injured workers and their employers that provides employees a definite remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment. I.C. § 72-201 ; Marek v. Hecla, Ltd., 161 Idaho 211, 215, 384 P.3d 975, 979 (2016) ; Blake, 146 Idaho at 848-49, 203 P.3d at 1247-18. With few exceptions, the Idaho legislature has removed workplace injuries from private controversy by creating a system that is intended to provide sure and certain relief to injured workers regardless of fault. I.C. § 72-201 ; Kolar v. Cassia Cnty., 142 Idaho 346, 351, 127 P.3d 962, 967 (2005). This "sure and certain relief' is provided to the exclusion of every other remedy, proceeding, or compensation, except as otherwise provided in the statutory framework. I.C. §§ 72-201, 72-209, and 72-211 ; Kolar, 142 Idaho at 351-52, 127 P.3d at 967-68. This is known as the "exclusive remedy rule." Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207, 209, 76 P.3d 951, 953 (2003).
The Idaho Worker's Compensation Law does not extinguish tort liability against a "third party" nor is the right to compensation affected by the fact that a "third party" may be held responsible for monetary damages. Rather, the Worker's Compensation Law dictates who is not considered a "third party" for the purposes of the statute. Section 72-223(1) states:
The right to compensation under this law shall not be affected by the fact that the injury, occupational disease or death is caused under circumstances creating in some person other than the employer a legal liability to pay damages therefor, such person so liable being referred to as the third party. Such third party shall not include those employers described in section 72-216, Idaho Code, having under them contractors or subcontractors who have in fact complied with the provisions of section 72-301, Idaho Code ; nor include the owner or lessee of premises, or other person who is virtually the proprietor or operator of the business there carried on, but who, by reason of there being an independent contractor or for any other reasons, is not the direct employer of the workmen there employed.
I.C. § 72-223(1). Thus, in many cases presented to this Court, determining who qualifies as a "third party" is central to the outcome. This analysis often includes a "statutory employer" analysis to determine if an employer meets the Worker's Compensation Law's definition of employer. See Fuhriman v. State, Dep't of Transp., 143 Idaho 800, 804-05, 153 P.3d 480, 484-85 (2007) ; Kolar, 142 Idaho at 351-52, 127 P.3d at 967-69 ; Gonzalez v. Lamb Weston, Inc., 142 Idaho 120, 122, 124...
To continue reading
Request your trial