Rickey R. Norman v. Jim Beam Brands Co., D/B/A James B. Beam Distilling Co., 2024-CA-0332

Background

Rickey Norman, employed by Premier AG Co-Op, delivered fuel to the Jim Beam Distillery in Clermont, KY, where he was injured after falling from a ladder provided by Beam while unloading fuel.
Norman filed a premises liability lawsuit against Beam, alleging unsafe conditions caused his injury; he also had a pending workers’ compensation claim through his own employer.
Beam moved for summary judgment, arguing it was immune from tort liability because Norman’s work was a “regular or recurrent” part of its business, making Beam his statutory "up-the-ladder" employer under Kentucky’s Worker’s Compensation Act.
The trial court agreed with Beam and granted summary judgment, dismissing Norman’s tort suit based on statutory immunity.
On appeal, Norman challenged the applicability of the "up-the-ladder" defense, arguing his services were not part of Beam’s regular business as defined by law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is fuel delivery a regular or recurrent part of Beam’s business under KRS 342.610(2)(b)?	Norman argued fuel delivery is not part of Beam’s core business (bourbon production/tourism); it is not usual, normal, or the type of work Beam does with its own employees.	Beam claimed frequent, necessary fuel deliveries are essential to its operation and thus fall within its regular/recurrent business activities, qualifying for statutory immunity.	Court held Norman’s work is not customary to Beam’s business per the legal standard; Beam not entitled to immunity.
Does the method of fuel delivery (performed by non-Beam employees with specialized licensing) affect statutory employer status?	Norman argued Beam lacks the licenses or employees to make such deliveries, so it is not the kind of work Beam would itself perform.	Beam argued regular contracting out of such work still qualifies it as regular/recurrent, even if their own employees cannot legally do it.	Court found that specialized, non-core services do not meet the standard for up-the-ladder immunity.
Should Beam receive immunity simply because delivery is "repeated" or regularly contracted?	Norman stated mere repeat deliveries to a business do not make the delivery entities subcontractors or the premises owner a statutory employer.	Beam contended that years of regular contracts with Premier AG show recurrence and thus immunity.	Court rejected this, clarifying that only work integral to the business qualifies.
Does public policy support or contradict granting Beam up-the-ladder immunity in these facts?	Norman noted the policy is to protect workers, not to shield owners from torts.	Beam argued statutory employer doctrine is meant to ensure worker coverage by broadening immunity.	Court agreed with Norman; public policy is not frustrated by rejecting Beam's immunity.

Key Cases Cited

General Elec. Co. v. Cain, 236 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. 2007) (defines "regular or recurrent" work for purposes of statutory employer immunity under the Workers' Comp Act)
Daniels v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 933 S.W.2d 821 (Ky. App. 1996) (work is regular/recurrent if mandated by law for the business)
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sherman & Fletcher, 705 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1986) (statutory employer immunity applies even if owner never performs work with own employees, when mandated by law)
Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc., Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013) (property owners owe a duty of care to business invitees)
Beaver v. Oakley, 279 S.W.3d 527 (Ky. 2009) (broad construction of “employer” in the up-the-ladder context)