White v. RGV Pizza Hut
122239
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jun 11, 2021Background:
- RGV Pizza Hut (Texas franchisee) owns/operates Pizza Hut restaurants in Texas and must keep roofs/appearance per franchise agreement.
- RGV contracted with Shomberg, Inc. (Kansas corporation) to perform skilled roof maintenance/painting on about 10 restaurants in 2016; no written contract for that work.
- Daniel White, an employee of Shomberg, fell from a Texas restaurant roof in Nov. 2016 and suffered serious injuries; Shomberg lacked workers' compensation insurance and was dismissed from the action.
- The Workers Compensation Appeals Board found RGV a statutory employer under K.S.A. 44-503(a), held Kansas has personal jurisdiction over RGV for the workers' compensation claim, and denied dismissal for failure to prosecute based on a good-faith discovery-related delay under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 44-523(f)(2).
- RGV appealed, arguing (1) it is not a statutory employer because roof work is not inherent/integral to its business; (2) Kansas courts lack personal jurisdiction over it consistent with the Due Process Clause; and (3) White did not timely prosecute and failed to "prove" good cause for delay.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory-employer status under K.S.A. 44-503(a) | White: RGV’s franchise obligations make roof maintenance integral to its Pizza Hut business, so subcontracted roof work makes RGV a statutory employer | RGV: Its business is selling pizza, not performing roof work; roof upkeep is not inherent to its trade so K.S.A. 44-503(a) does not apply | Affirmed: Work is inherent/integral to operating a Pizza Hut franchise under Hanna/Bright; RGV is a statutory employer |
| Personal jurisdiction (Due Process) | White: RGV purposefully contracted with a Kansas company, knew the employee was Kansas-based, and the claim arises from that relationship — Kansas jurisdiction is proper | RGV: Contacts with Kansas are limited; exercising jurisdiction would violate minimum-contacts/fair-play limits of the Fourteenth Amendment | Affirmed: Specific jurisdiction satisfied — purposeful availment via contract with known Kansas contractor and claim arises from that contact; Kansas has strong interest in enforcing its workers' compensation scheme |
| Timely prosecution under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 44-523(f)(2) (good-faith exception) | White: Discovery disputes over employer status constituted a good-faith reason to delay pursuing a final hearing | RGV: White failed to "prove" good cause; counsel’s statements were insufficient evidence; untimely prosecution warranted dismissal | Affirmed: Administrative findings of good-faith delay upheld; White’s counsel’s representations and case filings supported extension; RGV forfeited contemporaneous objections |
| Reliance on long-arm statute / Abbey precedent | White: Abbey and long-arm statute not controlling; workers' comp is administrative and statute/coextensive with due process | RGV: Relies on Abbey and K.S.A. 60-308(b) to contest jurisdiction | Rejected: Abbey inapposite; long-arm statute is coextensive with constitutional due-process limits and offers no additional shield |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanna v. CRA, Inc., 196 Kan. 156 (1966) (sets two-part test for statutory-employer inquiry: work inherent/integral to trade or ordinarily done by employer’s own employees)
- Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 251 Kan. 387 (1992) (refines Hanna; focus on whether similar businesses perform the work with their own employees)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (modern minimum-contacts framework for personal jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and fair-play factors for specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (focuses on defendant’s forum contacts rather than plaintiff’s connections)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (reaffirms principles distinguishing general and specific jurisdiction and relation between forum contacts and claim)