316 F. Supp. 3d 274
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- On April 21, 2014, employee Cecil Holt (employed by Tradesmen International) was injured on a Walsh Construction project after falling through a roof opening; Holt had been assigned to AES/UBS pursuant to staffing and subcontract arrangements.
- Tradesmen had a Client Services Agreement assigning employees to AES; AES/UBS performed subcontract work for general contractor Walsh under a written Subcontract.
- Holt sued Walsh (and others) in D.C. Superior Court; action removed to federal court. Walsh filed a third-party complaint against AES and UBS seeking contractual indemnification (Counts VII, X), equitable indemnification (VIII, XI), and contribution (IX, XII) if Walsh is held liable to Holt.
- AES/UBS moved to dismiss those third-party claims, arguing the D.C. Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA) exclusivity provision bars Walsh’s claims because AES/UBS were Holt’s employers as "lent employers."
- The court found AES/UBS are "lent employers" and thus Holt is barred by the WCA from suing them in tort, but evaluated whether Walsh’s indemnification and contribution claims survive despite the WCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AES/UBS are Holt’s employers ("lent employee"), bringing WCA coverage | Walsh did not contest that AES/UBS are Holt’s employers | AES/UBS argued the lent-employee doctrine applies based on contracts and control | Conceded by Walsh; court also finds lent-employee factors satisfied — WCA applies to bar employer tort liability |
| Whether express contractual indemnification in the Subcontract is barred by the WCA | Walsh: Subcontract contains express indemnification and a waiver provision, so WCA exclusivity is displaced | AES/UBS: Indemnity requires fault/negligence and employer cannot be liable in negligence under WCA, so indemnity is barred | Court: Express indemnity language is valid and displaces WCA exclusivity; contractual indemnity claims survive (Counts VII and X denied dismissal) |
| Whether equitable (implied) indemnification claims may proceed alongside an express indemnity clause | Walsh: May plead equitable indemnity in the alternative | AES/UBS: (argued dismissal) — but did not press inadequacy of pleading | Court: Permits plausible equitable indemnity pleadings in the alternative; equitable claims survive (Counts VIII and XI denied dismissal) |
| Whether contribution claims against AES/UBS are barred by the WCA | Walsh: Contribution is equitable/fair to allocate fault among wrongdoers; Subcontract allegedly waived WCA limits | AES/UBS: Contribution is a tort-based remedy barred by WCA; Subcontract does not waive contribution | Court: Contribution sounds in tort and is barred by WCA; Subcontract does not waive contribution — contribution claims dismissed (Counts IX and XII granted dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Myco, Inc. v. Super Concrete Co., Inc., 565 A.2d 293 (D.C. 1989) (discusses WCA exclusivity and that express indemnity can be an exception)
- USA Waste of Md., Inc. v. Love, 954 A.2d 1027 (D.C. 2008) (sets out "lent employee" doctrine factors for special employer liability)
- Rivers & Bryan, Inc. v. HBE Corp., 628 A.2d 631 (D.C. 1993) (courts narrowly construe indemnity waivers and agreements affecting WCA protections)
- N.P.P. Contractors, Inc. v. John Canning & Co., 715 A.2d 139 (D.C. 1998) (language "indemnify and save harmless" creates express contractual indemnity)
- Grunley Constr. Co., Inc. v. Conway Corp., 676 A.2d 477 (D.C. 1996) (interpretation of express indemnification language)