Flowell v. Rhodes
361 P.3d 91
Utah2015Background
- Rhodes Pump employees raised a truck boom near Flowell Electric’s high‑voltage line while servicing a well; during a second lowering the boom contacted the line and employee Brian Wade was severely injured.
- Wade obtained workers’ compensation from Rhodes’s employer and sued Flowell in tort; a jury found Flowell negligent and awarded large compensatory and punitive damages.
- Flowell then sued Rhodes under Utah’s High Voltage Overhead Lines Act (HVOLA), seeking statutory indemnification for the liability Flowell incurred as a result of the contact.
- The district court granted Flowell summary judgment, concluding Rhodes failed to give adequate notice of its intended activity (a HVOLA violation); Rhodes appealed.
- The Supreme Court considered (1) timeliness of Flowell’s HVOLA claim, (2) whether the Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) exclusive‑remedy bars HVOLA indemnity, (3) constitutional challenges (due process and equal protection), and (4) whether material facts precluded summary judgment on notice, completion of safety precautions, and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for HVOLA indemnification | Flowell: limitations run when the utility actually incurs liability (jury verdict), so suit filed within 3‑year statute is timely | Rhodes: limitations accrued at the time of the accident, so Flowell’s claim is time‑barred | Court: HVOLA claims governed by 3‑year statute for liabilities created by statute; accrual occurs when Flowell ‘‘incurred’’ liability (jury verdict); claim timely |
| Effect of WCA exclusive remedy on HVOLA indemnity | Flowell: WCA does not bar independent statutory indemnity imposed by HVOLA | Rhodes: WCA’s exclusive remedy for employer precludes civil liability under HVOLA arising from an employee injury | Court: WCA does not preclude HVOLA indemnity because HVOLA creates an independent statutory obligation analogous to an express indemnity; not barred by WCA |
| Constitutional challenges (due process / equal protection) | Rhodes: HVOLA as applied deprives Rhodes of property (WCA remedy) and treats similarly situated employers differently | Rhodes: same (argues fundamental fairness and uniformity) | Court: no deprivation—HVOLA and WCA are distinct; classification subject to rational‑basis review and survives; no due process or equal protection violation |
| Summary judgment (notice, completion of precautions, causation, gross negligence) | Flowell: Rhodes failed to give required notice of the second raising and failed to follow agreed precautions, so HVOLA violation caused contact | Rhodes: either the second raising was within the originally notified ‘‘intended activity’’ (no new notice required), Flowell disputed whether instructions to call before lowering were given, causation is unresolved, and Flowell’s negligence/gross negligence should preclude indemnity | Court: genuine issues of material fact exist—whether the original notice covered the second raise, whether parties agreed precautions (e.g., call before lowering), and whether Rhodes’s violation caused the contact; gross negligence of the utility is not a statutory exception to indemnity; reverse summary judgment and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Keith v. Mountain Resorts Dev., L.L.C., 337 P.3d 213 (Utah 2014) (standard of review for cross‑motions for summary judgment)
- Pan Energy v. Martin, 813 P.2d 1142 (Utah 1991) (more specific statute governs over more general statute)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Brinkerhoff‑Signal Drilling Co., 658 P.2d 1187 (Utah 1983) (WCA exclusive remedy does not bar independent indemnity obligations)
- Snyder v. PacifiCorp, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (D. Utah 2004) (federal district court holding WCA does not bar HVOLA‑type indemnity)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (U.S. 1982) (a cause of action is property protected by the Due Process Clause)