Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa
14 A.3d 678
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Tupa, an NFL punter, injured his lower back during August 19, 2005 preseason warm‑ups at FedEx Field in Maryland.
- He filed a Maryland workers’ compensation claim on March 30, 2007 seeking temporary partial disability benefits from February 1, 2006 onward.
- Pro Football, Inc. and Ace American Insurance challenge (i) Maryland vs. Virginia jurisdiction, (ii) whether the injury was an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment, and (iii) causation linking the injury to disability.
- Commissioner ruled Maryland had jurisdiction and that the injury was accidental and causally linked to employment; ordered benefits and medical expenses.
- At circuit court, the court held Maryland had jurisdiction; a jury found an accidental injury, causal connection to disability, and entitlement to benefits for February 1, 2006 to February 28, 2007.
- Tupa’s contract contains a Virginia forum clause directing Virginia law and the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission for disputes, including workers’ compensation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland has jurisdiction over the claim | Tupa’s contract designates Virginia forum and law; employer contends Virginia governs. | The clause should exclude Maryland; Tupa is not a Maryland covered employee under LE § 9-203. | Maryland has jurisdiction; forum clause unenforceable under LE § 9-104. |
| Whether the injury on August 19, 2005 was an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment | The injury occurred during work; Rowe is abrogated; Harris governs; injury was accidental under statutory standard. | The injury was foreseeable as part of routine football play; not accidental underRowe lineage. | Yes, the injury was an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment. |
| Whether the disability is causally related to the August 19, 2005 injury | Disability resulted from the accident; medical and lay testimony show causal link. | Preexisting degenerative condition primarily caused the disability; the accident was not the cause. | The disability was causally related to the compensable accident. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. Baltimore Colts, 53 Md. App. 526 (Md. App. 1983) (injury from usual contact not necessarily accidental; overruled by Harris)
- Harris v. Board of Education, 375 Md. 21 (Md. 2003) (overruled Rowe's unusual activity approach; defines accidental injury per statutory focus)
- McElroy Truck Lines, Inc. v. Pohopek, 375 Md. 574 (Md. 2003) (regular vs. incidental Maryland employment analysis for coverage)
- Gilman v. Wheat, First Securities, Inc., 345 Md. 361 (Md. 1997) (forum-selection clause generally enforceable; public policy considerations in coverage context)
- Victory Sparkler & Specialty Co. v. Francks, 147 Md. 368 (Md. 1925) (definition of accidental injury as occurring by chance or unexpectedly)
- Hodgson v. Flippo Construction Co., 164 Md. App. 263 (Md. App. 2005) (factors for determining regularity of employment in Maryland under 9-203)
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1972) (forum clause enforceability principles in federal context)
- Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1974) (presumption of enforceability of contract forum clauses)