Intents, Inc. v. Southwestern Electric Power Co., 2011 Ark. 32

SWEPCO owns energized overhead lines; Intents, Inc. failed to provide required notice under 11-5-307 prior to work near the lines.
October 14, 2004: Intents employees manning a large tent near SWEPCO lines suffered injuries and some fatalities.
Lawsuits were filed against SWEPCO; one claim was dismissed, two estates obtained judgments in SWEPCO's favor.
Intents sought to apply the exclusive-remedy provision of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act to bar indemnity.
SWEPCO sought indemnity and attorney’s fees under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-5-305; total indemnity claims noted were $78,283.76 plus fees.
Cross-motions for summary judgment focused on whether § 11-5-305 overrides exclusive-remedy; the circuit court granted indemnity and fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 11-5-305 overrides exclusive remedy.	Intents argues exclusivity bars indemnity.	SWEPCO argues special-law indemnity exists by statute.	Yes; indemnity overrides exclusivity.
Whether the Work Near High Voltage Lines Act creates a statutory special relationship.	Paragould-based logic applies by operation of law.	No implied indemnity; statute creates a duty only to notify.	Yes; special relationship created by statute supports indemnity.
Whether attorney’s fees are recoverable under § 11-5-305 when no property damage or personal injury to SWEPCO occurred.	Fees are recoverable as part of damages under the statute.	Fees require property damage or personal injury to the owner.	Yes; fees recoverable under statute in this context.
Whether the fee award was within the circuit court’s discretion.	Awarding fees is proper as the statute contemplates ‘all loss, cost, and damages’.	Fee awards require strict adherence to penal nature; abuse of discretion standard.	No abuse of discretion; award affirmed.

Gourley v. Crossett Pub. Schs., 333 Ark. 178 (1998) (exclusivity and immunity principles in workers’ compensation context)
W.M. Bashlin Co. v. Smith, 643 S.W.2d 526 (Ark. 1982) (exclusivity rule applies to third-party tort claims against employer)
Mosley Machinery Co., Inc. v. Gray Supply Co., 833 S.W.2d 772 (Ark. 1992) (implied indemnity limits when no contract or implied obligation exists)
Helms v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., 664 S.W.2d 870 (Ark. 1984) (workers’ compensation generally exclusive remedy; public policy considerations)
Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. v. Pickens-Bond Construction Co., 477 S.W.2d 477 (Ark. 1972) (indemnity where contract impliedly provides duty to indemnify)
Smith v. Paragould Light & Water Comm’n, 793 S.W.2d 341 (Ark. 1990) (implied indemnity under special operation-of-law relationship)
C & L Rural Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Kincaid, 256 S.W.2d 337 (Ark. 1953) (express indemnity contracts as exception to exclusivity)
Elk Corp. of Arkansas v. Builders Transport, Inc., 862 F.2d 663 (8th Cir. 1988) (two primary indemnity contexts recognized by operation of law)
Paragould Light & Water Comm’n v. Smith, 303 Ark. 109 (1990) (special relationship arising by operation of law; tapping of sewers statute)