189 A.3d 761
Me.2018Background
- Donald Hammond formed Benton, LLC in 2012 to own real estate; Hammond Lumber Company (HLC) operates the lumber business and directs operations of various Hammond Lumber LLCs that own store parcels.
- HLC hired Clark as a yard worker in 2009. On Feb. 13, 2015, while removing snow from a Benton, LLC–owned building that HLC used, Clark fell through a skylight and was seriously injured.
- HLC (through its insurer) paid Clark workers’ compensation benefits for his injuries and lost wages under the Maine Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Clark sued Benton, LLC for negligence (failure to maintain, provide safe premises, and warn of hazards). Benton moved for summary judgment claiming §104 immunity because HLC had secured compensation and Benton is functionally affiliated with HLC.
- The Superior Court denied summary judgment; Benton appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court considered whether a property‑owning affiliate with no employees can claim employer immunity under the Act via the dual persona doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clark) | Defendant's Argument (Benton, LLC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an entity with no employees can qualify as an "employer" under the Act for §104 immunity | Clark: No — Benton has no employment relationship with him, so it is not an employer and cannot claim immunity | Benton: Its close affiliation with HLC (shared officers/ownership, HLC directs operations and paid some expenses) means it should share HLC’s immunity once HLC secured workers’ comp | Held: No — an entity with no employees is not entitled to §104 immunity merely from affiliation; Benton is a separate property owner with independent duties |
| Whether the dual persona doctrine extends HLC’s immunity to Benton | Clark: Dual persona is an exception to immunity and does not convert a non‑employer property owner into an immune employer | Benton: The doctrine should be extended so affiliated entities that are functionally one should share immunity | Held: Dual persona is an exception to immunity and does not apply here; Benton lacks the necessary status as an otherwise exempt employer and has separate duties as landowner |
| Whether LaBelle/Hatch/Peavey compel immunity for Benton | Clark: Those cases distinguish employer/officer claims from landowner liability and thus support denying immunity | Benton: Relies on affiliation to analogize to cases where officers or landlords were found immune or analyzed under dual persona | Held: LaBelle, Hatch, Peavey support that a property owner sued in its capacity as landowner is not immune despite affiliation with the employer |
| Whether court should pierce corporate form or apply alter‑ego/economic‑reality tests to grant immunity | Clark: No evidence of abuse of corporate form to pierce veil; alter‑ego/economic reality not adopted by Maine courts here | Benton: Urges court to disregard form and apply alter‑ego/economic reality to reach immunity | Held: Court declines to pierce corporate veil or adopt alter‑ego/economic‑reality doctrines on this record; those doctrines not needed to decide immunity here |
Key Cases Cited
- Peavey v. Taylor, 637 A.2d 449 (Me. 1994) (discusses dual persona inquiry and duties separate from employment)
- LaBelle v. Crepeau, 593 A.2d 653 (Me. 1991) (landowner with corporate ties sued as property owner not immune under Act)
- Hatch v. Lido Co., 609 A.2d 1155 (Me. 1992) (explains dual persona doctrine as exception to workers’ compensation immunity)
- Li v. C.N. Brown Co., 645 A.2d 606 (Me. 1994) (supports limits on extending employer immunity to affiliated non‑employer defendants)
Outcome: Judgment affirmed — Benton, LLC is not immune under 39‑A M.R.S. §104 and summary judgment was properly denied.