Morales v. Arrowood Indem. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 March 2022
• Docket Number: 967,CA 21-00259
• Parties: Anne E.V. MORALES, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Morales, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, Dawn Chrisler, Melissa Piraino, Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

203 A.D.3d 1603
165 N.Y.S.3d 200

Anne E.V. MORALES, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Morales, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, Dawn Chrisler, Melissa Piraino, Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendants.

967
CA 21-00259

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: March 11, 2022

COUGHLIN MIDLIGE & GARLAND LLP, NEW YORK CITY (GABRIEL E. DARWICK OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

CONNORS, LLP, BUFFALO (ANDREW DEBBINS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

165 N.Y.S.3d 202

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is modified on the law by granting those parts of the motion seeking to dismiss the complaint in its entirety against defendants Dawn Chrisler and Melissa Piraino, seeking to dismiss the 1st through 10th and 14th causes of action against defendant Arrowood Indemnity Company, seeking to dismiss the 11th and 12th causes of action against defendant Arrowood Indemnity Company insofar as those causes of action assert claims that accrued prior to February 20, 2017, and seeking to dismiss the 13th cause of action against defendant Arrowood Indemnity Company except insofar as it is based on the surviving portions of the 11th and 12th causes of action, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action asserting causes of action arising from defendants’ conduct in denying or delaying approval of workers’ compensation benefits and payment of claims submitted by or on behalf of plaintiff's late husband, Joseph Morales (decedent). Decedent submitted workers’ compensation claims after he was injured on two separate occasions during his employment with nonparty Strategic Minerals Corporation (Strategic Minerals). Defendant Arrowood Indemnity Company (Arrowood), as workers’ compensation insurer for Strategic Minerals, became responsible for those claims. Arrowood and its claims adjusters Dawn Chrisler and Melissa Piraino (collectively, defendants) appeal from an order insofar as it denied that part of their motion seeking to dismiss the complaint against them.

Initially, we conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the complaint against Chrisler and Piraino, who are employees of Arrowood. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Our review of the record " ‘fails to reveal any factual allegations that [those employees] acted either outside the scope of their employment or for personal profit’ in a manner that would open them to personal liability" ( Maki v. Travelers Cos. Inc. , 145 A.D.3d 1228, 1230, 44 N.Y.S.3d 220 [3d Dept. 2016], appeal dismissed 29 N.Y.3d 943, 51 N.Y.S.3d 490, 73 N.E.3d 847 [2017] ; see O'Keefe v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 90 A.D.3d 725, 726, 934 N.Y.S.2d 481 [2d Dept. 2011] ; Freyne v. Xerox Corp. , 98 A.D.2d 965, 965, 470 N.Y.S.2d 187 [4th Dept. 1983] ).

We also conclude that the court erred in denying the motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the 1st through 10th causes of action against Arrowood, and we further modify the order accordingly. A number of plaintiff's causes of action are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Under that statute, an employer such as Strategic Minerals must, with certain exceptions not relevant here, "secure compensation to [its] employees and pay or provide compensation for their disability or death from

165 N.Y.S.3d 203

injury arising out of and in the course of the employment without regard to fault as a cause of the injury" ( Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 [1] ). An employer's liability under that statute is "exclusive and in place of any other liability whatsoever, to such employee, his or her personal representatives, spouse, parents, dependents, distributees, or any person otherwise entitled to recover damages, contribution or indemnity, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury or death or liability arising therefrom" (§ 11). Thus, "the Workers’ Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy to an employee for a work-related injury. In addition the law is settled that an employee has no cause of action against his employer for the negligent aggravation of [a work-related] injury" ( Burlew v. American Mut. Ins. Co. , 99 A.D.2d 11, 14, 471 N.Y.S.2d 908 [4th Dept. 1984], affd 63 N.Y.2d 412, 482 N.Y.S.2d 720, 472 N.E.2d 682 [1984] ). That is because "[t]he legislative scheme for workers’ compensation benefits is far-reaching. It concerns itself not only with the simple fact of a work-related injury, but it provides a thorough system of regulation, administration, and, where the Legislature has deemed them appropriate, sanctions" ( Burlew , 63 N.Y.2d at 416, 482 N.Y.S.2d 720, 472 N.E.2d 682 ). "In addition to providing relief for work-related injuries, the Workers’ Compensation Law also regulates the processing of claims. Injuries allegedly occurring as a result of an employer's delay in authorizing surgery are subject to the exclusive remedies provided in that legislative plan" ( id. at 414-415, 482 N.Y.S.2d 720, 472 N.E.2d 682 ). The Workers’ Compensation Law does not "provide that a separate lawsuit may be instituted to recover damages for the emotional distress triggered by an employer's delay" in processing claims ( id. at 417, 482 N.Y.S.2d 720, 472 N.E.2d 682 ; see Mark B. v. County of Onondaga , 273 A.D.2d 834, 834, 710 N.Y.S.2d 268 [4th Dept. 2000], lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 764, 716 N.Y.S.2d 38, 739 N.E.2d 294 [2000] ). "Furthermore, a compensation carrier stands in the place of the employer and is subrogated to its rights and claims when the carrier performs its obligations under its insurance...