Knight ex rel. Knight v. Estate of McCoy

• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HILL, Justice.
• Citation: Knight ex rel. Knight v. Estate of McCoy, 341 P.3d 412, 2015 WY 9 (Wyo. 2015)
• Decision Date: 14 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. S–14–0099.,S–14–0099.
• Parties: In re Wrongful death action of Jerome C. KNIGHT, by and through his wrongful death personal representative, Garret KNIGHT, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. The ESTATE OF Victor McCOY, deceased, and M & M Welding Services, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, Appellees (Defendants).

341 P.3d 412

2015 WY 9

In re Wrongful death action of Jerome C. KNIGHT, by and through his wrongful death personal representative, Garret KNIGHT, Appellant (Plaintiff)

v.The ESTATE OF Victor McCOY, deceased, and M & M Welding Services, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, Appellees (Defendants).

No. S–14–0099.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Jan. 14, 2015.

Representing Appellant: John P. Worrall of Worrall and Greear, P.C., Worland, WY.

Representing Appellee: Curtis B. Buchhammer of Buchhammer & Kehl, P.C., Cheyenne, WY.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, KITE, DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.

Opinion

HILL, Justice.

[¶ 1] This appeal arises out of a wrongful death action following an automobile accident in which both Jerome Knight (Decedent) and Victor McCoy (McCoy) were killed. Decedent was employed by M & M Welding Services, LLC (M & M), and McCoy was one of the owners of M & M. McCoy was driving the vehicle when the accident occurred, and Garret Knight (Plaintiff), as Decedent's personal representative, filed a wrongful death action against the Estate of Victor McCoy (the McCoy Estate) and M & M. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of M & M on grounds of employer immunity under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act and summary judgment in favor of the McCoy Estate on grounds of defective service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction, and expiration of the statute of limitations. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Plaintiff states the issues on appeal as follows:

I. Did the District Court correctly determine that Worker's Compensation Coverage existed such as to bar any action by the Plaintiff vs. M & M Welding Services, LLC?

II. Did the District Court err in granting a Summary Judgment based upon an unsigned Summons which was presented to Kathryn McCoy as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Victor McCoy based upon lack of jurisdiction?

III. Did Appellee[s] waive [their] jurisdictional defense by failing to raise [it] in their first W.R.C.P. 12(b) Motion?

FACTS

[¶ 3] On September 29, 2010, Decedent, who had been employed by M & M for only three or four days, accompanied his supervisor McCoy, who was also an owner in M & M, to a work site south of Worland, Wyoming. At approximately 4:00 p.m., Decedent and McCoy departed from the work site, and with McCoy driving, they headed back to Worland. At approximately 4:20 p.m., about two miles south of Worland, McCoy crossed the highway's center line and collided head on with an oncoming semi-trailer truck. Both Decedent and McCoy immediately died of their injuries. Toxicology tests performed after the accident showed that McCoy was under the influence of a significant amount of methamphetamine at the time of his death.

[¶ 4] On August 10, 2012, Katherine McCoy was appointed as Administrator of the McCoy Estate. On August 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against the McCoy Estate and M & M (collectively Defendants). On September 5, 2012, Katherine McCoy was asked to accept service of Plaintiff's complaint and was at that same time provided with a summons, a copy of the complaint, and an acceptance of service document.¹ On September 10, 2012, the acceptance of service bearing Ms. McCoy's signature was filed. The document read, with emphasis in the original:

COMES NOW, Katherine McCoy, and in the above-entitled cause, and hereby accepts and acknowledges service of the Complaint and Summons, and voluntarily enters her appearance on behalf of The Estate of Victor McCoy, Defendant, herein and consents that said cause may be tried forthwith at the convenience of the Court.

[¶ 5] On September 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to specify compliance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27–14–105, which requires notification to the Wyoming Attorney General and the Director of the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Division of any legal action related to an injury for which workers' compensation benefits were paid. On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff served the amended complaint on M & M by serving the amended complaint and a summons on Ashley Morris, the other co-owner of M & M. On October 12, 2012, Plaintiff served the amended complaint on the McCoy Estate by serving the amended complaint and a summons on Katherine McCoy.

[¶ 6] On October 15, 2012, Defendants filed their Answer of Defendants to Amended Complaint. Included in Defendants' affirmative defenses, Defendants alleged: process was defective and insufficient as to each Defendant; improper service of process; and lack of personal jurisdiction over either Defendant.

[¶ 7] On December 31, 2012, Defendants filed a W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss alleging a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Also on December 31, 2012, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Through the motion to dismiss, Defendants alleged that the McCoy Estate was immune from suit under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act. Through the summary judgment motion, Defendants alleged that M & M was immune from suit under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act, or alternatively that Plaintiff had elected workers' compensation benefits and was therefore estopped from asserting claims against M & M.

[¶ 8] The district court held a hearing on Defendants' motions on May 29, 2013, and on July 24, 2013, the court issued its decision. The court found that M & M was immune from suit under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act and granted Defendants' summary judgment motion as to claims against M & M. The court found that genuine issues remained on the question whether claims against the McCoy Estate were barred by the Worker's Compensation Act and denied Defendants' summary judgment motion as to claims against the McCoy Estate. With respect to Defendants' motion to dismiss claims against the McCoy Estate, the court ruled that

while it is yet to be determined whether the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint amount to an intentional act to cause physical harm or injury to the injured employee, the facts as pled in the Complaint give fair notice of the claim to Defendants and are sufficient to withstand a W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) motion[.]

[¶ 9] On August 28, 2013, the McCoy Estate filed a second summary judgment motion. Through its second summary judgment motion, the McCoy Estate alleged that it was entitled to judgment because: 1) Plaintiff named the wrong defendant when it named the McCoy Estate as Defendant (instead of Katherine McCoy, in her capacity as Administrator of the McCoy Estate); 2) process was defective because the summons for the amended complaint was not issued under the seal of the court, was not addressed to the named defendant, and was addressed to Katherine McCoy individually as opposed to in her official capacity as Administrator; and 3) the statute of limitations had expired.²

[¶ 10] The district court heard argument on the McCoy Estate's second summary judgment motion on December 18, 2013, and on January 10, 2014, the court issued an order granting the motion. The court ruled:

1. Plaintiff's naming of the Estate of Victor McCoy as the party-defendant, as opposed to Katherine McCoy in her capacity as the personal representative of that estate, was not fatal and could be remedied through amendment of the caption.

2. The original complaint and amended complaint in this matter are substantively the same and assert the same claim against the Defendant.

3. The summonses that accompanied the complaint and amended complaint were insufficient, did not comply with Rule 4, W.R.C.P., deprive the Court of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and are fatal to Plaintiff's claim against Defendant.

4. The Defendant timely raised defenses associated with the insufficiencies of the summonses and personal jurisdiction.

5. The statute of limitations on Plaintiff's claim has expired and there is no savings clause that applies to either toll or extend the applicable statute of limitations.

[¶ 11] On February 10, 2014, the district court, following Defendants' W.R.C.P. 58 submission of a proposed order, entered its order on Defendants' first summary judgment motion and motion to dismiss. Plaintiff timely appealed the orders granting Defendants' dispositive motions.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 12] We review orders granting summary judgment using the following well-established standard of review:

We review a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards. We examine the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record. A material fact is one which, if proved, would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. If the moving party presents supporting summary judgment materials demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden is shifted to the non-moving party to present appropriate supporting materials posing a genuine issue of a material fact for trial. We review a grant of summary judgment deciding a question of law de novo and afford no deference to the district court's ruling.

Meyer v. Miller, 2014 WY 91, ¶ 15, 330 P.3d 263, 267 (Wyo.2014) (quoting Estate of Dahlke ex rel. Jubie v. Dahlke, 2014 WY 29, ¶ 26, 319 P.3d 116, 123–24 (Wyo.2014) ).

DISCUSSION

A. M & M's Employer Immunity

[¶ 13] The district court found undisputed evidence that M & M employed Decedent and paid workers' compensation premiums on his behalf. Based on those findings, the court concluded that M & M's employer immunity under the Wyoming Worker's Compensation Act barred Plaintiff's action against M & M as a matter of law. Plaintiff contends that a question of fact exists as to whether Decedent was properly included on M & M's payroll at the time of the accident and that the court therefore erred in ruling M & M's employer immunity barred Plaintiff's wrongful death claim. We find no...