Williams v. Leone & Keeble Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 83743–1.,83743–1.
• Citation: 171 Wash.2d 726,254 P.3d 818
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Delbert WILLIAMS, Petitioner,v.LEONE & KEEBLE, INC., a Washington corporation, Respondent.

171 Wash.2d 726

254 P.3d 818

Delbert WILLIAMS, Petitioner,

v.LEONE & KEEBLE, INC., a Washington corporation, Respondent.

No. 83743–1.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued Feb. 17, 2011.Decided June 9, 2011.

Richard Leslie Mckinney, Attorney at Law, Spokane, WA, for Petitioner.

Andrew Christian Bohrnsen, The Law Office of Andrew C. Bohrnsen PS, Spokane, WA, for Respondent.CHAMBERS, J.

[171 Wash.2d 728] ¶ 1 A Washington resident injured on a construction job brought suit against the general contractor, a Washington corporation, in superior court in Washington State. But the injury took place in Idaho, and the worker received workers' compensation benefits from the Idaho State Insurance Fund. The trial court granted the general contractor's motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and we now reverse.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 Delbert Williams is a Washington resident. Williams was an employee of Paycheck Connection LLC, an Idaho company providing labor services, who regularly sent him to work for Pro–Set Erectors Inc., an Idaho construction company.¹ In early 2007, Pro–Set was hired as a subcontractor for a school remodeling project in Idaho. Leone & Keeble Inc. (L & K), a Washington corporation, was the general contractor for the project. On August 3, 2007, while installing a strut on the roof, Williams lost his balance and fell 35 feet, striking a steel wall brace on the way down and suffering severe injuries to his legs and back.

¶ 3 Williams reported his injuries to the Idaho State Insurance Fund. The Idaho State Insurance Fund accepted that the injury was compensable and began issuing workers' compensation payments to Williams. The payments apparently stopped altogether in September 2008. Williams filed suit against L & K in Spokane County Superior Court in July 2008. The trial court granted L & K's motion to dismiss for “Want of Jurisdiction.” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 306. The Court of Appeals affirmed, Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., 152 Wash.App. 150, 216 P.3d 446 (2009), and we granted review. Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., 168 Wash.2d 1025, 228 P.3d 18 (2010).

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

¶ 4 Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Crosby v. County of Spokane, 137 Wash.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999).

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

¶ 5 For the purposes of clarity, we begin by distinguishing jurisdiction, res judicata, and collateral estoppel:

¶ 6 Jurisdiction: Washington superior courts have jurisdiction by grant of authority from the Washington State Constitution. Const. art. IV, § 6. “The critical concept in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is the ‘type of controversy.’ ” Dougherty v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 150 Wash.2d 310, 316, 76 P.3d 1183 (2003) (quoting Marley v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 125 Wash.2d 533, 539, 886 P.2d 189 (1994)). Subject matter jurisdiction does not turn on agreement, stipulation, or estoppel. Wesley v. Schneckloth, 55 Wash.2d 90, 93–94, 346 P.2d 658 (1959). Either a court has subject matter jurisdiction or it does not. Id. at 93, 346 P.2d 658. “ ‘ “If the type of controversy is within the subject matter jurisdiction, then all other defects or errors go to something other than subject matter jurisdiction.” ’ ” Dougherty, 150 Wash.2d at 316, 76 P.3d 1183 (quoting Marley, 125 Wash.2d at 539, 886 P.2d 189 (quoting Robert J. Martineau, Subject Matter Jurisdiction as New Issue on Appeal: Reining in an Unruly Horse, 1988 BYI L.Rev. 1, 28)). Where one state resident sues another in tort, the superior courts of Washington State have subject matter jurisdiction. See Const. art. IV, § 6 (“[t]he superior court shall also have original jurisdiction in all cases and of all proceedings in which jurisdiction shall not have been by law vested exclusively in some other court”).

¶ 7 Res Judicata: Res judicata is a doctrine of claim preclusion. It bars relitigation of a claim that has been determined by a final judgment. See Schoeman v. New York Life Ins. Co., 106 Wash.2d 855, 860, 726 P.2d 1 (1986). Res judicata applies where the subsequent action involves (1) the same subject matter, (2) the same cause of action, (3) the same persons or parties, and (4) the same quality of persons for or against whom the decision is made as did a prior adjudication. In re Estate of Black, 153 Wash.2d 152, 170, 102 P.3d 796 (2004).

[171 Wash.2d 731] ¶ 8 Collateral Estoppel: Collateral estoppel is a doctrine of issue preclusion. It bars relitigation of issues of ultimate fact that have been determined by a final judgment. State v. Vasquez, 148 Wash.2d 303, 308, 59 P.3d 648 (2002). Collateral estoppel requires that (1) the identical issue was decided in the prior adjudication, (2) the prior adjudication resulted in a final judgment on the merits, (3) collateral estoppel is asserted against the same party or a party in privity with the same party to the prior adjudication, and (4) precluding relitigation of the issue will not work an injustice. Clark v. Baines, 150 Wash.2d 905, 913, 84 P.3d 245 (2004).

¶ 9 Our courts below are, of course, mindful of these doctrines, but seem to have given deference to opinions of the Idaho courts which have, as discussed below, used the term “the issue of jurisdiction” to refer to the issue of whether a worker was injured within the scope of employment, thus precluding certain tort claims. However, in the context of the case before us, that issue is best described as one of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, not jurisdiction.

¶ 10 L & K relies on several Idaho cases to support its contention that application for and receipt of benefits by a worker from the Idaho Industrial Insurance Commission bar plaintiffs from asserting third party claims against general contractors in Washington. The cited cases address the specific issue of whether a final decision regarding whether an injury occurred during the course of employment could be relitigated in an Idaho trial court. See Baker v. Sullivan, 132 Idaho 746, 749, 979 P.2d 619 (1999); Anderson v. Gailey, 97 Idaho 813, 819–20, 555 P.2d 144 (1976); see also Hansen v. Estate of Harvey, 119 Idaho 333, 336–37, 806 P.2d 426 (1991). These cases may speak in terms of jurisdiction, but what the Idaho Supreme Court has actually determined is that collateral estoppel bars relitigation of factual issues, such as whether the injury occurred in the course of employment. See Hansen, 119 Idaho at 335–38, 806 P.2d 426. Because that issue may be fatal to a tort action under Idaho law, its determination can in effect lead to the conclusion that a tort claim is barred based upon the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

¶ 11 L & K relies in particular on Anderson, 97 Idaho 813, 555 P.2d 144. Anderson's estate brought a wrongful death action following his death while he was performing repairs down a 285–foot–deep shaft. One issue was whether Anderson could bring a tort action against Gailey or whether his exclusive remedy was under Idaho's Workers' Compensation Act. The court characterized this issue as the “Jurisdictional Issue.” Id. at 819, 555 P.2d 144. If Anderson was an employee of Gailey, then, under Idaho law, Anderson was limited to remedies provided under the Workers' Compensation Act; but if Anderson was either an independent contractor or engaged in “casual employment” then Anderson was entitled to tort remedies. Id. The Idaho Supreme Court held resolution of the “jurisdictional issue” turned on facts and the trial court properly submitted the issue to the jury. Id. In short, the Idaho Supreme Court used the term “jurisdictional issue” to describe the issue of whether or not Anderson was injured during the scope of his employment with Gailey and thus precluded from tort remedies. See id. at 816–17, 555 P.2d 144.

¶ 12 Subsequent Idaho opinions have similarly applied the principle of issue preclusion to the scope of employment. Baker, 132 Idaho at 749, 979 P.2d 619; Hansen, 119 Idaho at 337, 806 P.2d 426. Where a final determination has been made by the Idaho Industrial Insurance Commission on the issue of whether a worker was injured during the scope of employment, that issue may not be relitigated under principles of collateral estoppel. Hansen, 119 Idaho at 337, 806 P.2d 426. But because such a determination by the Idaho Industrial Insurance Commission can preclude relitigation of factual issues and thus bar tort actions under Idaho law, the Idaho courts have used the terms of “res judicata” and “jurisdiction” instead of the more strictly accurate “collateral estoppel.” ² See Hansen, 119 Idaho at 335–38, 806 P.2d 426; Anderson, 97 Idaho at 819, 555 P.2d 144.

[171 Wash.2d 733] ¶ 13 The Court of Appeals may have been understandably confused by the Idaho courts' apparent conflation of the term “jurisdiction” with factual issues relevant to whether a tort action is barred. See Anderson, 97 Idaho at 825, 555 P.2d 144. However, it is not the issue of subject matter jurisdiction that the Idaho courts have held precludes a tort claim, but rather the factual issue of whether the injury occurred in the “course of employment.” Baker, 132 Idaho at 749, 979 P.2d 619; Hansen, 119 Idaho at 336, 806 P.2d 426; Anderson, 97 Idaho at 825, 555 P.2d 144. Here, Williams concedes he was injured during the course of his employment. And he is not bringing this claim against his employer. See RCW 51.24.030(1) (allowing claims against third parties “not in a worker's same employ”). He is bringing a claim against a third party Washington general contractor for negligence. That cause of action is allowed under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, Title 51 RCW.³ See id.; Novenson v. Spokane Culvert & Fabricating Co., 91 Wash.2d 550, 553, 588 P.2d 1174 (1979) (for purposes of workers' compensation, an employment relationship exists only when the employer has the right to control the worker's physical conduct, and the employee...