461 S.W.3d 422
Ky. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Sept. 11, 2012, Bryan Lay (Advanced Cable employee) was struck by a truck driven by an Ervin Cable employee while loading the truck in a gas-station parking lot during a workday.
- Lay was injured within the course and scope of his employment with subcontractor Advanced Cable and received workers’ compensation benefits from Advanced Cable’s insurer.
- Advanced Cable and Ervin Cable had a contractor/subcontractor relationship for the project at issue (practically and by the parties’ acknowledgments), though no formal written subcontract was required or dispositive.
- Lay filed a tort suit against Ervin Cable (the contractor) seeking damages; Ervin Cable moved for summary judgment asserting "up-the-ladder" immunity under KRS 342.690(1) (exclusive remedy in workers’ comp).
- The Jackson Circuit Court denied Ervin Cable’s summary judgment motion; Ervin Cable appealed the denial based on absolute immunity, an interlocutory order subject to immediate review when immunity is asserted.
- The court of appeals vacated the denial and directed the trial court to grant summary judgment for Ervin Cable, concluding the contractor was immune under the workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ervin Cable is entitled to "up-the-ladder" immunity under KRS 342.690(1) | Lay sought tort damages against Ervin Cable despite receiving workers’ comp from Advanced Cable | Ervin Cable argued KRS 342.690 bars tort suits against contractors when the injured worker received workers’ comp from the subcontractor (exclusive remedy) | Court held Ervin Cable entitled to up-the-ladder immunity; summary judgment directed for Ervin Cable |
| Whether denial of summary judgment based on asserted immunity is immediately appealable | Not directly argued beyond pursuing tort claim in trial court | Ervin Cable asserted denial of immunity is immediately appealable because immunity frees a party from defending the action | Court found appellate jurisdiction appropriate and heard the claim (immediate appeal allowed) |
| Whether lack of a written subcontract or a contention that injury was not work-related defeats immunity | Lay disputed aspects (e.g., necessity of written insurance requirement, work-relatedness) | Ervin Cable argued practical contractor/subcontractor relationship and that injury was work-related and covered | Court rejected Lay’s contentions; factual record established the relationship and work-related injury, so immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Breathitt County Bd. of Educ. v. Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883 (Ky. 2009) (denial of a substantial immunity claim is immediately appealable)
- Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476 (Ky. 1991) (summary judgment standard explained)
- Coomer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 319 S.W.3d 366 (Ky. 2010) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Beaver v. Oakley, 279 S.W.3d 527 (Ky. 2009) (up-the-ladder immunity applies to contractors using subcontractors)
- United Eng’rs & Constructors, Inc. v. Branham, 550 S.W.2d 540 (Ky. 1977) (practical contractor/subcontractor relationships can confer immunity)