Estate of Dennis R. Kay v. Estate of Douglas J. Wiggins
143 A.3d 1290
| Me. | 2016Background
- In December 2011 Dennis Kay, while driving a Budget Truck van to perform a vehicle transfer arranged through Option Rentals, slid off the road on glare ice and died.
- Kay worked for Douglas Wiggins (Option Rentals); Wiggins regularly directed Kay to transfer Budget vehicles and Option Rentals was paid by Budget for transfers.
- Kay’s estate sued Wiggins’s estate and Budget Truck Rental, LLC for wrongful death and punitive damages.
- Wiggins produced evidence that he had an active, State-accepted workers’ compensation policy at the time of the accident; Kay consistently asserted he was Wiggins’s employee.
- The trial court treated Wiggins’s motion as one for summary judgment and granted it based on the Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity; the court also granted Budget Truck summary judgment, finding no duty/proximate cause or that any vicarious claim would be barred by workers’ compensation.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed both judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kay’s tort claim against Wiggins is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act | Kay argued he was Wiggins’s employee and could pursue tort recovery (or alternatively an independent contractor, but he pressed employee theory) | Wiggins showed he had State-accepted workers’ compensation coverage, invoking exclusivity/immunity | Court held Kay’s tort claim barred by the Act; summary judgment for Wiggins affirmed |
| Whether Wiggins carried burden to prove the affirmative defense on summary judgment | Kay contended evidence was insufficient to prove coverage | Wiggins produced affidavits, declarations page, and Board verification showing coverage | Court held Wiggins met burden; Kay failed to rebut, so defense established |
| Whether Budget Truck is vicariously liable for Kay’s death because it controlled Wiggins | Kay argued Budget exercised control over Wiggins making Budget vicariously liable | Budget argued either (a) vicarious liability would make it subject to the same workers’ compensation exclusivity, or (b) it owed no separate duty to Kay | Court held unresolved control issue unnecessary: if vicarious liability applied, claim barred by workers’ comp; alternatively, Kay failed to show a separate duty by Budget—summary judgment for Budget affirmed |
| Whether Kay could now rely on an independent-contractor theory to avoid exclusivity | Kay sought to argue on appeal he was an independent contractor of Wiggins | Wiggins pointed out Kay consistently pled and argued he was an employee and presented no supporting facts for independent-contractor status | Court refused to consider the new independent-contractor theory on appeal; Kay cannot raise it for the first time |
Key Cases Cited
- Budge v. Town of Millinocket, 55 A.3d 484 (Me. 2012) (summary judgment standard; view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A.2d 733 (Me. 2010) (judgment as a matter of law when no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Beverage v. Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc., 502 A.2d 486 (Me. 1985) (workers’ compensation exclusivity bars civil tort actions by employees against employers)
- Marcoux v. Parker Hannifin/Nichols Portland Div., 881 A.2d 1138 (Me. 2005) (employer with secured workers’ compensation is exempt from civil actions for employee injuries)
- Addy v. Jenkins, Inc., 969 A.2d 935 (Me. 2009) (plaintiff must establish prima facie case for each negligence element to survive summary judgment)
- Trusiani v. Cumberland & York Distribs., Inc., 538 A.2d 258 (Me. 1988) (standards for proving duty and negligence elements)