Griffin v. Honeywell International, Inc.
0:13-cv-00166
E.D. Ky.Nov 13, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Griffin, as administratrix of the Estate of Drue Gay, sues Honeywell entities for product liability in Kentucky state court, alleging warranty breach and defective design.
- Smithfield Packing Company, the third-party defendant, employed Gay and is sued for indemnity/contribution/apportionment arising from Gay's death after a 480-volt shock.
- Gay wore EH-certified boots at time of death; plaintiff claims boots were designed to protect against electrical shock up to 14,000 volts.
- Honeywell and Norcross remove the case to federal court and file a third-party complaint against Smithfield seeking indemnity, contribution, and/or apportionment.
- Smithfield moves to dismiss the third-party complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of viable claims due to workers’ compensation exclusivity and related limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indemnity viability against employer after WC exclusivity | Griffin argues indemnity should apply despite WC limits. | Smithfield contends WC exclusivity bars indemnity claims; Smithfield paid WC benefits. | Indemnity claim dismissed; limited to WC benefits already paid. |
| Contribution viability after WC exclusivity | Honeywell/Norcross seek contribution from Smithfield for damages. | Dix and related authorities bar contribution where WC obligations have been fully met. | Contribution claim dismissed; no further obligation against Smithfield. |
| Apportionment against Smithfield | Apportionment should be available against Smithfield for fault. | Apportionment can exist, but Smithfield need not remain a party for fault apportionment. | Apportionment claims may be possible, but Smithfield may be dismissed as a party. |
| Necessity of Smithfield remaining as a party for apportionment | Smithfield should be included to facilitate fault apportionment. | Parties other than Smithfield can be apportioned; no need for Smithfield to remain. | Smithfield need not remain a party for apportionment; dismissal appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Labor Ready, Inc. v. Johnston, 289 S.W.3d 200 (Ky. 2009) (WC exclusivity limits employer liability to WC benefits)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Sweco, Inc., 610 S.W.2d 932 (Ky.App. 1980) (statutory scheme limits employer liability under WC)
- Franke v. Ford Motor Company, 398 F.Supp.2d 833 (W.D.Ky. 2005) (indemnity survives WC context but limited by statute)
- Dix & Assoc. Pipeline Contractors, Inc. v. Key, 799 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. 1990) (apportionment among joint tortfeasors when WC paid; no further contribution)
- Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984) (adopts comparative negligence and fault apportionment in tort, while WC limits remain)