Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co.

Decision Date29 May 2019
Docket NumberNo. CV-18-607,CV-18-607
Citation578 S.W.3d 296,2019 Ark. App. 306
Parties Mary Katherine MYERS, Widow [of Michael Earl Myers] and Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Earl Myers, Deceased, Appellant v. YAMATO KOGYO COMPANY, LTD. ; Sumitomo Corporation, Arkansas Steel Associates; Sumitomo Corporation of Americas d/b/a Sumitomo Corporation of America, SC Steel Investment, Inc. ; SC Steel Investment, LLC ; Yamato Kogyo (U.S.A.) Corporation; and Yamato Kogyo America, Inc., Appellees
CourtArkansas Court of Appeals

2019 Ark. App. 306
578 S.W.3d 296

Mary Katherine MYERS, Widow [of Michael Earl Myers] and Administratrix of the Estate of Michael Earl Myers, Deceased, Appellant
v.
YAMATO KOGYO COMPANY, LTD. ; Sumitomo Corporation, Arkansas Steel Associates; Sumitomo Corporation of Americas d/b/a Sumitomo Corporation of America, SC Steel Investment, Inc. ; SC Steel Investment, LLC ; Yamato Kogyo (U.S.A.) Corporation; and Yamato Kogyo America, Inc., Appellees

No. CV-18-607

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISIONS I & IV.

Opinion Delivered May 29, 2019


Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, by: Paul Byrd Little Rock, and Paul D. Gates; John Patterson, P.A., Attorney at Law, by: John Patterson; Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, by: Brian G. Brooks ; and Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., by: David L. Kwass, and David Langsam, Pro Hac Vice, for appellant.

Wright Lindsey & Jennings LLP, Little Rock, by: John D. Davis, Scott A. Irby, Baxter D. Drennon, and Michael A. Thompson, for appellees.

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

Michael Myers was killed at work when a load of molten metal spilled and covered his body. His employer, Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC, did not dispute that Myers's death on 19 February 2014 was work related and is paying death benefits to Michael's widow, Mary Myers. In May 2016, Mary Myers, individually and as an administratrix of her husband's estate and a representative of his wrongful-death beneficiaries, filed a lawsuit in the White County Circuit Court. The circuit court, in part, transferred jurisdiction to the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission. In June 2018, the Commission found that some entities—Yamato Kogyo Company, Ltd.; Sumitomo Corporation; Sumitomo Corporation of Americas d/b/a Sumitomo Corporation of America; SC Steel Investment, Inc.; SC Steel Investment, LLC; Yamato Kogyo (U.S.A.) Corporation; and Yamato Kogyo America, Inc.—were entitled to the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Act. Myers appeals that decision.

This appeal raises at least two important questions in the law of workers' compensation:

• May an employee of a subsidiary entity sue one or more parent corporations in tort, or are parent corporations immune "employers" under the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act? See Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105(a) (Supp. 2017).

• If one or more parent corporations are deemed "employers" within the meaning of the act, does that violate article 5, section 32 of the Arkansas Constitution ? Ark. Const. art. V, § 32, amended by Ark. Const. amend. XXVI.

I.

The parties stipulated to the following facts when litigating this case before the administrative law judge:

1. On February 29, 2014, Michael Earl Myers was employed by Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC as a ladle man in a steel plant.

2. While Michael Myers was working in the course and scope of his employment for Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC, a load of molten metal spilled from a Hot Metal Crane inside the Melt Shop of the steel plant.

3. The molten metal engulfed his entire body causing, among other things, catastrophic injuries and death.

4. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC's insurance carrier, is paying death benefits to Claimant Mary Myers, the widow of Michael Earl Myers, arising from his work-related death.
578 S.W.3d 299
5. Arkansas Steel Associates, a New York general partnership, no longer exists and is hereby dismissed from this action.

6. SC Steel Investment, Inc. no longer exists and is hereby dismissed from this action.

7. Sumitomo Corporation of Americas was a principal and stockholder of Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC at the time of Michael Earl Myers' afore-described workplace injury and death.

8. At the time of Michael Earl Myers' afore-described workplace injury and death, Sumitomo Corporation wholly owned Summit Global Management of America, Inc., which wholly owned Sumitomo Corporation of Americas.

9. After Michael Earl Myers' afore-described workplace injury and death, Summit Global Management of America, Inc. merged into Sumitomo Corporation of Americas.

10. SC Steel Investment, LLC was a principal and stockholder of Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC at the time of Michael Earl Myers' afore-described workplace injury and death.

11. Sumitomo Corporation wholly owned SC Steel Investment, LLC at the time of Michael Earl Myers' afore-described workplace injury and death. 12. Yamato Kogyo (U.S.A.) Corporation was a principal and stockholder of Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC at the time of Michael Earl Myers' afore-described workplace injury and death.

13. Yamato Kogyo America, Inc. wholly owned Yamato Kogyo (U.S.A.) Corporation at the time of Michael Earl Myers' afore-described workplace injury and death.

14. Yamato Kogyo Company, Ltd. wholly owned Yamato Kogyo America, Inc. at the time of Michael Earl Myers' afore-described workplace injury and death.

The ownership structure of Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC, is shown in the following diagram.

578 S.W.3d 300

The appellee corporations are, either directly or indirectly, owners of Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC. They are separate and distinct entities from Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC. The appellee entities have their own corporate entity designations; their own formation and creation dates; their own headquarters; their own employer identification numbers; and their own officers, directors, and managers. The parent companies do not hire or fire Arkansas Steel employees; do not pay them salaries or wages; do not provide them with W2s or 1099s; do not train or educate them; do not supply workers'-compensation or other benefits; and do not set their work schedules. There were no direct employees of the appellee parent corporations present at the jobsite when the accident occurred; and there has been no evidence that any direct employee of the parent corporations had ever met Michael Myers before the accident.

Myers argues that an employer-employee relationship was a requirement for, and prerequisite to, employer immunity under section 11-9-105(a). Section 11-9-105 states:

(a) The rights and remedies granted to an employee subject to the provisions of this chapter, on account of injury or death, shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies of the employee, his legal representative, dependents, next of kin, or anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from the employer, or any principal, officer, director, stockholder, or partner acting in his or her capacity as an employer, or prime contractor of the employer, on account of the injury or death , and the negligent acts of a coemployee shall not be imputed to the employer. No role, capacity, or persona of any employer, principal, officer,
578 S.W.3d 301
director, or stockholder other than that existing in the role of employer of the employee shall be relevant for consideration for purposes of this chapter, and the remedies and rights provided by this chapter shall in fact be exclusive regardless of the multiple roles, capacities, or personas the employer may be deemed to have.

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105(a) (Supp. 2017) (emphasis added). According to Myers, Arkansas Steel Associates, LLC was the sole employer under the circumstances, meaning she cannot sue it in tort but can sue other entities. The parent companies were not actual employers, Myers says, because no agents of the parent companies were present at the jobsite where Michael Myers was killed nor did they treat him as an employee.

In contrast, the parent companies argue that they are employers for purposes of the exclusive-remedy doctrine because the General Assembly has made them so. Specifically, the parent companies argue that the statutory language that "any principal, officer, director, stockholder, or partner acting in his or her capacity as employer" applies to them. According to the parent companies, an immune entity does not have to act as an "actual" or "true" employer as a matter of fact—all it must do to be immune from tort liability is to meet the statute's requirements that it be a principal or stockholder of an immune employer.

The Commission found that the Yamoto and Sumitomo parent companies were "party-employers acting within the employer-shareholder role." It found that the Yamoto and Sumitomo defendants were "immune from liability as a result of their personae as principals and stockholders in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105(a)." The Commission wrote:

The Full Commission finds that [the Yamoto and Sumitomo parent companies] were acting in their capacities as the claimant's employer at the time of the compensable injury. [The parent companies] are immune from liability in tort pursuant to their status as principals or stockholders, in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-105(a) (Repl. 2012). The respondents were not a third party in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-410(a) (Repl. 2012). Therefore, as it pertains to [the parent companies], jurisdiction of this case rests exclusively with the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission.

As we said earlier, Myers has timely appealed the Commission's decision to apply the exclusive-remedy doctrine in favor of the appellees.

II.

The Commission has original exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a tort action is barred by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 9, 2020
    ...5, section 32 of the Arkansas Constitution.The court of appeals affirmed the Commission’s decision. See Myers v. Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd. , 2019 Ark. App. 306, 578 S.W.3d 296. We granted Myers’s petition for review and now consider this case as though it had been originally filed in this Cour......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT