Hall v. Dallman Contractors, LLC
994 N.E.2d 1220
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On Dec. 5, 2007 Brenda Hall tripped on a snow-covered construction sign near the AT&T building and injured her arm; she later filed both a workers’ compensation claim and a negligence suit against contractors and AT&T-related entities.
- Hall’s workers’ compensation proceedings produced a Settlement Agreement naming “AT&T f/k/a Ameritech Home Services” as employer and awarding benefits; an affidavit later stated “Ameritech Services, Inc.” paid a $20,532.50 compromise settlement.
- Hall’s negligence complaint named Dallman Contractors and later added AT&T Property Management; the trial court substituted AT&T Services, Inc. as the real party in interest for the AT&T property-management defendant.
- AT&T Services moved for summary judgment, arguing Hall’s negligence claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision because she already recovered WC benefits from an AT&T entity.
- Designated evidence included Hall’s deposition (she generically called her employer “AT&T”), the Settlement Agreement (naming “AT&T f/k/a Ameritech Home Services”), and affidavits stating Ameritech Services, Inc. paid Hall and was an 8.15% owner/affiliate of AT&T Services.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for AT&T Services; on appeal the court reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact exist about whether AT&T Services was Hall’s employer or a joint employer and therefore whether the exclusive-remedy bar applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hall) | Defendant's Argument (AT&T Services) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act bars Hall’s negligence claim against AT&T Services | Hall: designated evidence does not establish AT&T Services was her employer or paid her WC benefits; exclusive remedy therefore does not bar suit | AT&T Services: Hall recovered WC benefits from an AT&T entity and AT&T Services is part of AT&T corporate family (or joint employer), so exclusive remedy bars the negligence claim | Reversed summary judgment — genuine factual disputes exist about which legal entity employed/payed Hall and whether AT&T Services is a joint employer |
| Whether AT&T Services was Hall’s employer (identity of employer) | Hall: Settlement caption is vague; evidence doesn’t show AT&T Services employed her or paid benefits | AT&T Services: Hall identified employer as "AT&T f/k/a Ameritech" in WC proceedings; corporate family includes AT&T Services so she is judicially estopped from denying employer identity | Court: Evidence does not conclusively show AT&T Services was the employer; judicial estoppel not warranted absent bad-faith/misrepresentation |
| Whether AT&T Services was a joint employer (parent/subsidiary) under the Act | Hall: No evidence AT&T Services was a subsidiary or majority-owned by the named WC payor; affiliation alone insufficient | AT&T Services: Parent/subsidiary/joint-employer status follows from corporate structure and the Act’s parent-subsidiary language | Court: Use BCL definition of subsidiary; designated evidence (8.15% ownership) fails to show majority ownership or parent/subsidiary status — genuine issue remains |
| Whether judicial estoppel prevents Hall from disputing employer identity | Hall: No inconsistent positions or bad-faith intent in prior filings | AT&T Services: Hall’s WC designation of "AT&T f/k/a Ameritech Home Services" should preclude her later claim employer identity is vague | Court: Judicial estoppel inapplicable — not shown Hall acted in bad faith or made clearly inconsistent assertions |
Key Cases Cited
- Perdue v. Gargano, 964 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. 2012) (summary-judgment standard and review principles)
- GKN Co. v. Magness, 744 N.E.2d 397 (Ind. 2001) (Workers’ Compensation Act bars common-law employer claims; third-party suits allowed if defendant is not employer)
- Kenwal Steel Corp. v. Seyring, 903 N.E.2d 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (caution against importing unrelated statutory definitions without basis)
- Wine-Settergren v. Lamey, 716 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. 1999) (statutory remedies in the Act are in derogation of common law and construed strictly against limiting claimant rights)
- DePuy, Inc. v. Farmer, 847 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 2006) (discusses subrogation and double-recovery issues in WC context)