Keener v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

• Decision Date: 02 September 1986
• Docket Number: Nos. 85-5029,85-5123 and 84-5728,85-5122,s. 85-5029
• Citation: 255 U.S. App. D.C. 148,800 F.2d 1173
• Parties: Roy B. KEENER, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Howard DENNIS, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Stanley WILMES, et al., Appellants, v. BECHTEL CIVIL AND MINERALS, INC., et al. , et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Page 1173

800 F.2d 1173

255 U.S.App.D.C. 148

Roy B. KEENER, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

Howard DENNIS, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

Stanley WILMES, et al., Appellants, v. BECHTEL CIVIL AND MINERALS, INC., et al.

Nos. 85-5029, 85-5122, 85-5123 and 84-5728, et al.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Jan. 21, 1986.

Decided Sept. 2, 1986.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil Action Nos. 81-0114, et al.).

Peter Vangsnes and William F. Mulroney, with whom James M. Hanny and Michelle A. Parfitt, Washington, D.C., were on the briefs, for appellants.

Walter A. Smith, Jr., with whom Vincent H. Cohen, Robert B. Cave, Susan M. Hoffman, and David F. Grady, Washington, D.C., were on the briefs, for appellee WMATA.

David P. Durbin, with whom Edward J. Lopata, Washington, D.C., was on the joint brief, for appellees Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., in Nos. 85-5122 & 85-5123.

Before MIKVA, BORK, and BUCKLEY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BUCKLEY.

BUCKLEY, Circuit Judge:

On the surface, these three related cases would seem to involve a reasonably straight-forward issue, namely, the scope of the immunity against tort actions granted contractors and subcontractors by the workmen's compensation laws applicable to the District of Columbia for injuries incurred before July 26, 1982. Unfortunately, its resolution requires the negotiation of a legal maze involving the interactions of two workmen's compensation statutes enacted by Congress, the repeal of one of them by the District of Columbia in the exercise of its home-rule authority, a Supreme Court decision interpreting the statute at issue in each of the cases before us and subsequent congressional action designed to reverse the rule enunciated by the Court--all with an eye to the requirements of the federal general savings statute.

It is against this legal backdrop that the rights of the appellants (all of whom seek damages for injuries incurred in the construction of a new subway system) must be determined. For the reasons elaborated below, we conclude that the congressional action reversing the Supreme Court's rule did not affect the rights and obligations of the parties before us. As a consequence, the Court's ruling continues to control these cases, and we therefore affirm their dismissal by the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Legal

As a first step towards an understanding of these cases, we believe it useful to provide a brief description of the legal context within which they must be decided.

In 1927, Congress enacted the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, 33 U.S.C. Secs. 901 et seq. (1982) ("the Longshoremen's Act") in order to provide injured workers in U.S. maritime industries with workmen's compensation protection. The following year, acting in its capacity as the legislative authority for the District of Columbia, Congress provided employees in the District these same benefits by enacting the District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act of 1928, D.C.Code Secs. 36-501 et seq. (1973) ("the 1928 Act"). The statute did so through the simple device of adopting, by reference, the provisions of the Longshoremen's Act, "including all amendments that may hereafter be made thereto." Some fifty years later, after the District of Columbia had achieved home rule, the D.C. Council, in 1979, enacted a statute repealing the 1928 Act and bringing the District's workmen's compensation law into general conformity with that of the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia. The new law became effective on July 26, 1982. District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act of 1979, D.C.Code Secs. 36-501 et seq. (1981) ("the 1982 Act").

On June 26, 1984, in a case involving claims arising from injuries incurred before the 1982 Act became effective, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, as general contractor, was entitled to immunity against tort suits under section 905 of the Longshoremen's Act. WMATA v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 925, 104 S.Ct. 2827, 81 L.Ed.2d 768 (1984). Three months later President Reagan signed into law the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act Amendments of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-426, 98 Stat. 1639 ("the 1984 amendments"). These included changes in sections 904 and 905 that were designed to reverse the Supreme Court's holding in Johnson. The central issue in each of the cases on appeal is whether the 1984 amendments had any effect on the claims now before us, each of which had been dismissed by the district court pursuant to Johnson.

We conclude that as the repeal of the 1928 Act had the effect of severing the application of the Longshoremen's Act to the District of Columbia in 1982, the subsequent 1984 amendments were without effect on the law of the District. While the general savings statute, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 109 (1982), does serve to keep the 1928 Act alive, it does so for the sole purpose of preserving the provisions of the Longshoremen's Act, as they existed in 1982, for the benefit of employees whose claims are derived from injuries occurring before the 1982 Act became law. Thus the ruling in Johnson remains controlling. As we find no merit in the other points raised by appellants in the cases on appeal, we affirm their dismissal.

B. Factual

Appellants in Keener v. WMATA, Dennis v. WMATA, and Wilmes v. Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc. all claim to have been injured while working on the construction of a rapid transit subway system for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. The construction of the subway is coordinated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ("WMATA"), an agency created by an interstate compact for the purpose of construing and operating the rapid transit system. In fulfillment of that purpose, WMATA hired subcontractors to work on the construction of the subway. Appellants were employees of these subcontractors or of sub-subcontractors who in turn had been hired by them.

In 1971, WMATA informed its subcontractors that it would secure workmen's compensation insurance for all construction employees working on the subway system and proceeded to purchase a workmen's compensation insurance policy (sometimes referred to as a "wrap up" policy) that covered all individuals working on the subway construction project regardless of who was their direct employer. This relieved subcontractors of any necessity to secure insurance for their own employees. At the same time, it enabled WMATA (as general contractor for the project) to protect itself against potential liability arising out of provisions of the Longshoremen's Act that were applicable to the District of Columbia by virtue of the 1928 Act. (At that time the Longshoremen's Act stated that general contractors "shall be liable for and shall secure the payment of compensation to employees of the subcontractor unless the subcontractor has secured such payment." 33 U.S.C. Sec. 904(a) (1982)). As a result of this arrangement, appellants' workmen's compensation claims were processed under WMATA's insurance policy.

In addition to seeking recovery under WMATA's insurance policy, appellants instituted third-party tort actions in the district court. Initially, many of these actions were brought against two subcontractors of WMATA, Bechtel Civil & Minerals, Inc., and Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation, D.C. The claims against the Bechtel subcontractors were dismissed, however, because they were deemed to be agents of WMATA, and section 80 of the WMATA Compact states that the sole remedy for the torts of WMATA's agents will be by suit against WMATA. See Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corp., 545 F.Supp. 783 (D.D.C.1982), modified, 717 F.2d 574 (D.C.Cir.1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. WMATA v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 925, 104 S.Ct. 2827, 81 L.Ed.2d 768 (1984).

WMATA in turn claimed immunity from tort liability under the Longshoremen's Act, which states that "the liability of an employer prescribed in section 904 of this title shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee." 33 U.S.C. Sec. 905(a)(1982).

In the cases now before this court in Wilmes v. Bechtel Civil and Minerals, Inc., WMATA argued that as it had secured the payment of the workmen's compensation benefits, it was entitled to immunity as if it were the "employer." The district court agreed and granted summary judgment for WMATA. The order granting summary judgment was appealed. In order to avoid a flood of similar appeals in the remaining cases now before this court in Keener v. WMATA and Dennis v. WMATA, ¹ the district court stayed proceedings pending resolution of the first appeal.

The issue of WMATA's immunity was decided by the Supreme Court in WMATA v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 925, 104 S.Ct. 2827, 81 L.Ed.2d 768 (1984), reversing this court's holding in Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corp., 717 F.2d 574 (D.C.Cir.1983). The Supreme Court divided its analysis into two parts. First, the Court concluded that the immunity granted to employers under section 905 of the Longshoremen's Act can extend to general contractors. Second, the Court determined that a general contractor qualifies for section 905 immunity if it has not defaulted on its "statutory obligation to secure back-up compensation for subcontractor employees...." Johnson, 467 U.S. at 940, 104 S.Ct. at 2836. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a general contractor was only entitled to immunity when it was forced into securing compensation because the subcontractor had failed to provide coverage. The Court reasoned that "[i]mmunity is not cast as a reward for employers that secure compensation; rather, loss of immunity is levied as a penalty on those that neglect to meet their statutory obligations." Id. at 937, 104 S.Ct. at 2834. Thus, so long as coverage was provided, the general...