Pro-Football, Inc. v. Tupa
51 A.3d 544
Md.2012Background
- Tupa, a former NFL punter, injured his back August 19, 2005 during pre-game warm-up at FedEx Field in Maryland.
- Tupa signed an employment contract with Pro-Football, Inc. containing a forum selection clause designating Virginia law and exclusive Virginia WC Commission jurisdiction for workers’ compensation claims.
- Tupa filed a Maryland Workers’ Compensation claim; the Maryland Commission ruled it had jurisdiction and awarded benefits for an accidental injury with causal relation to the August 2005 injury.
- The employer/insurer challenged in circuit court, which, with a jury, and then the Court of Special Appeals, all upheld Maryland jurisdiction and the compensability of the injury.
- The case reached the Maryland Supreme Court via certiorari to decide (1) whether Maryland had jurisdiction despite the forum clause, and (2) whether the August 2005 injury was an accidental injury under Maryland law.
- The Court held the forum clause ineffective to divest Maryland of jurisdiction and addressed the accidental-injury issue in light of Maryland precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Maryland have jurisdiction despite the forum clause? | Tupa’s contract requires Virginia law and Virginia WC exclusive jurisdiction. | Forum clause validly diverts WC claims to Virginia. | Maryland jurisdiction valid; forum clause ineffective. |
| Is the August 2005 injury an accidental injury under Maryland law? | Injury arose in the course of employment and is compensable. | Rowe/contrary view require unusual occurrence; professional football not accidental. | Yes; injury is an accidental personal injury under §9-101(b)(1). |
Key Cases Cited
- Kacur v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 253 Md. 500 (Md. 1969) (forum clauses ineffective in workers’ comp)
- McElroy v. Pohopek, 375 Md. 574 (Md. 2003) (MD WC law applies despite Alabama-claim language)
- Alaska Packers Ass’n v. Comm’n, 294 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1935) (forum clause invalid where it attempts to alter jurisdiction)
- Harris v. Board of Education, 375 Md. 21 (Md. 2003) (injury need not arise from unusual activity; scope of injury is broader)
- Victory Sparkler Co. v. Francks, 147 Md. 368 (Md. 1925) (early articulation of injury scope under Md. WC law)
- Rowe v. Baltimore Colts, 53 Md. App. 526 (Md. Ct. Sp. App. 1983) (held not consistent with later Harris on ‘accidental injury’)