272 P.3d 331
Alaska2012Background
- Trudell, employee of Phillips Construction Co., was injured on a uninsured job for the Hibberts at their office-residence structure.
- The Hibberts own AAA Cab and multiple rental properties; the office-residence is used for cab business operations and as residence.
- Phillips repaired the Hibberts’ office-residence under a cash deal; the cab company paid the contract and related expenses.
- Trudell sued for workers’ compensation, and sought to hold Hibberts liable as project owners under AS 28.30.045; Phillips sought bankruptcy protection.
- Superior Court denied Hibberts’ summary judgment and later awarded Rule 82 fees to Hibberts; the case proceeded to a bench trial on project owner status.
- The issue on appeal is whether the Hibberts are “project owners” under AS 28.30.045(f)(2) and thus liable for workers’ compensation and associated costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ‘in the course of the person’s business’ widen project owner liability beyond the usual work rule? | Trudell: broad statutory scope | Hibberts: limits to usual business contracts | Yes; usual business rule does not limit project owner status. |
| Are the Hibberts project owners under AS 23.30.045(f)(2) given their cab and rental businesses? | Hibberts engaged in a project benefiting personal home repair | Hibberts acted as homeowners; not business entities | Yes; Hibberts are project owners. |
| Did the superior court commit error by applying the Larson ordinary-business test to project-owner liability? | Larson test inappropriate for project owners | Larson test should have applied | Error to apply Larson (usual business) to project owner liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiel v. Union Oil Co. of California, 219 P.3d 1025 (Alaska 2009) (project owner amendments intended broad coverage to ensure workers’ compensation)
- Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010) (rejects use of common usage for ‘project owner’)
- Thorsheim v. State, 469 P.2d 383 (Alaska 1970) (early definition of contractor/subcontractor; adopted Thorsheim definitions)
- Everette v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 614 P.2d 1341 (Alaska 1980) (relative nature of work test not useful for project owner status)
- Gaede v. Saunders, 53 P.3d 1126 (Alaska 2002) (employer/consumptive-use distinction in project owner analysis)
- Sauve v. Winfree, 907 P.2d 7 (Alaska 1995) (separate entities owning business and premises; landlords can be liable)