294 So.3d 604
Miss.2020Background
- A storm damaged Henry Peak’s roof; Allstate hired Pilot Catastrophe Services, which sent Michael Cohee (an independent catastrophe adjuster) to inspect and adjust Peak’s claim.
- Cohee inspected the interior first and observed attic water stains, rotten decking, and a poorly installed ridge vent before going onto the roof.
- While traversing the roof, Cohee stepped through rotten decking along the ridge vent and sustained serious injuries; he subsequently received workers’ compensation benefits and the insurer intervened to seek reimbursement.
- Cohee sued Peak for failing to make the premises safe and for not warning of the roof’s condition; Peak moved for summary judgment asserting the "intimately connected" doctrine and, alternatively, Mississippi Code § 11-1-66.
- The trial court denied summary judgment twice; Peak obtained interlocutory review. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed de novo and found no genuine issue of material fact.
- The Court held Cohee’s injuries arose out of and were intimately connected to the adjustment work he was hired to perform, Peak exercised no control over Cohee, and therefore Peak was entitled to summary judgment; the denial was reversed and judgment rendered for Peak.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "intimately connected" doctrine bars Cohee’s suit | Cohee: he was an invitee; Peak knew/should have known of rot and failed to warn; no privity required | Peak: injury arose from the inspection/adjustment work Cohee was hired to perform; owner exercised no control; doctrine bars liability | The Court: doctrine applies; injury was intimately connected to the contracted task and Peak had no control; summary judgment for Peak |
| Whether Miss. Code § 11-1-66 bars the suit | Cohee: owner must warn invitee of known/obvious dangers (knowledge/notice dispute) | Peak: alternatively barred by § 11-1-66 because Cohee, as an independent contractor, knew or should have known of the danger | Court did not reach § 11-1-66 because the intimately connected doctrine was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Magee v. Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp., 551 So. 2d 182 (Miss. 1989) (articulates the intimately connected work doctrine and the control exception)
- Vu v. Clayton, 765 So. 2d 1253 (Miss. 2000) (applies the doctrine to an independent contractor injured while performing contracted work despite lack of privity)
- Hathorn v. Hailey, 487 So. 2d 1342 (Miss. 1986) (early source on injuries "arising out of or intimately connected with" the work)
- Fruchter v. Lynch Oil Co., 522 So. 2d 195 (Miss. 1988) (discusses owner’s retained right of control as an exception)
- Leffler v. Sharp, 891 So. 2d 152 (Miss. 2004) (summary judgment reviewed de novo and standards for material fact disputes)
- Jackson Ready-Mix Concrete v. Sexton, 235 So. 2d 267 (Miss. 1970) (owner not liable for dangers known or obvious to invitees)