934 N.W.2d 5
N.D.2019Background
- Brock, a California resident, worked as a pipefitter for KS Industries, LLC (LLC) beginning December 2010 and was severely injured in a March 31, 2011 vehicle accident while riding in a company vehicle with co-worker Richard Price, becoming quadriplegic.
- WSI (North Dakota) initially accepted Brock’s claim and paid benefits; LLC had paid WSI premiums covering Brock.
- Brock pursued California workers’ compensation benefits from KS Industries, LP; the California WC Appeals Board found Brock was an employee of LP and awarded benefits. LP’s carrier then reimbursed WSI and paid benefits.
- WSI reversed its North Dakota acceptance under N.D.C.C. §65-05-05 after California accepted Brock’s claim.
- Brock sued Price and LLC in North Dakota for negligence; the district court ultimately granted summary judgment dismissing his suit under North Dakota’s workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy statutes. The court also awarded costs to Price/LLC without holding a hearing after Brock’s objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court’s consideration of late summary-judgment motion (scheduling order) | Brock: Defendants violated stipulated deadline; motion untimely. | Price/LLC: Court may extend scheduling deadlines and entertain dispositive motion. | No abuse of discretion; court properly considered the November 2018 motion. |
| Whether ND WSI exclusive-remedy bars Brock’s negligence suit | Brock: California finding that LP was employer (collateral estoppel) prevents applying ND exclusive-remedy to bar suit. | Price/LLC: LLC paid WSI premiums and Brock applied for/received WSI benefits, so ND statutes bar the tort suit regardless of CA decision. | Held for defendants: ND exclusive-remedy provisions bar the suit; dismissal affirmed. |
| Collateral estoppel effect of California administrative decision | Brock: CA decision precludes defendants from claiming LLC was employer, preserving his tort claim. | Price/LLC: CA determination is irrelevant to ND immunity once WSI benefits were sought/received. | Court did not rely on collateral estoppel; issue unnecessary to decision (district court had rejected estoppel). |
| Awarding costs without hearing under N.D.R.Civ.P. 54(e)(2) | Brock: Objected to costs and required hearing; cannot afford costs. | Price/LLC: Sought costs; court reduced expert fees but awarded substantial costs. | Reversed and remanded: district court erred—must hold hearing on objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smithberg v. Smithberg, 931 N.W.2d 211 (N.D. 2019) (summary-judgment standard)
- Trinity Hosp. v. Mattson, 723 N.W.2d 684 (N.D. 2006) (workers’ comp exclusive remedy explanation)
- Richard v. Washburn Pub. Sch., 809 N.W.2d 288 (N.D. 2011) (legislative compromise and exclusive remedy context)
- Carlson v. GMR Transp., Inc., 863 N.W.2d 514 (N.D. 2015) (burden on employer to prove immunity under act)
- Westman v. Dessellier, 459 N.W.2d 545 (N.D. 1990) (claimant who participates in fund loses right to sue employer)