Krol v. CF & I Steel
307 P.3d 1116
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Krol, an employee of SKIM, was injured while training a CF&I employee on CF&I cranes on CF&I property.
- CF&I contracted SKIM to train CF&I employees; previously Alpine Crane handled crane maintenance.
- Krol received workers' compensation benefits through SKIM's insurer.
- CF&I moved for summary judgment arguing Krol's injury fell under the Workers' Compensation Act as a statutory employer under §8-41-402 and §8-41-401.
- The district court granted summary judgment for CF&I on both sections, raise reasons without proper notice for §8-41-401, and the case proceeded on those bases.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding §8-41-402 requires work on and to the property and remanding for further proceedings on §8-41-401 and the facts of the contracted work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §8-41-402 requires work both on and to the property | Krol was on CF&I property but may not have been doing work to the property | Being on the property suffices for statutory employer status under §8-41-402 | §8-41-402 requires work on and to the property; on alone is insufficient |
| Whether there is a genuine issue on if Krol was doing work to CF&I property | There is a factual question about the nature of Krol's work | If on the property, immunity applies regardless of whether work was being done to the property | Summary judgment improper pending factual dispute about work to the property |
| Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment under §8-41-401 without notice | N/A or limited to §8-41-402; argument about §8-41-401 not properly raised | §8-41-401 basis supported by record if work is part of regular business | District court erred by granting based on an unraised issue without notice; remand for §8-41-401 merits and factual development |
Key Cases Cited
- Finlay v. Storage Tech. Corp., 764 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1988) (statutory employer scope; importance of nature of contracted work)
- Thornbury v. Allen, 991 P.2d 383 (Colo.App. 1999) (worker involved in doing work to property; distinguishable facts)
- Schwartz v. Tom Brown, Inc., 649 P.2d 783 (Colo.App. 1982) (work on property vs. to property distinctions)
- Waneka v. Clyncke, 134 P.3d 492 (Colo.App. 2005) (discussion of substituting 'and' with 'or' in statutory interpretation)
- Snyder v. Indus. Comm'n, 138 Colo. 523, 335 P.2d 543 (1959) (liberal construction cannot alter plain statutory meaning)