Marjorie Ann BROWN, Appellant, v. Lennie WILLIAMS, Appellee.
No. 20150412-CA
Court of Appeals of Utah.
Filed February 16, 2017
2017 UT App 29
J. Bradford DeBry and Zachary E. Lambert, Attorneys for Appellant. Richard K. Glauser and David E. Brown, Sandy, Attorneys for Appellee. Judge Kate A. Toomey authored this Opinion, in which Judges Stephen L. Roth and David N. Mortensen concurred.
¶67 The district court rejected the Buyers’ proposed instruction on the ground that the court had already “effectively ... determined there was no duty” when it dismissed the Buyers’ negligent misrepresentation claim at summary judgment.
¶68 “Whether the trial court’s refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness.” State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 238 (Utah 1992). The determination of whether a legal duty exists “is a purely legal question,” which we also review for correctness. Yazd v. Woodside Homes Corp., 2006 UT 47, ¶ 14, 143 P.3d 283.
¶69 To prevail on a claim of fraudulent nondisclosure, a plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the defendant had a legal duty to communicate information, (2) the defendant knew of the information he failed to disclose, and (3) the undisclosed information was material. Hess v. Canberra Dev. Co., 2011 UT 22, ¶ 29, 254 P.3d 161. As explained above, the district court correctly ruled that, under the Accountant Liability Statute, the Accountant owed no duty to the Buyers.
¶70 Here, the Buyers argue that the factual circumstances of this case—particularly the Accountant’s role in the due diligence meeting—created a duty from the Accountant to the Buyers. The Buyers cite to Yazd v. Woodside Homes, which recognized that a duty between parties otherwise lacking privity may arise if a “special relationship exists.” See 2006 UT 47, ¶ 18, 143 P.3d 283 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
¶71 “There are occasionally instances in which a court is called upon to make policy choices based on assessments of social, economic, and technological conditions,” such as when “policy considerations bear on a subject lodged firmly within the court’s sphere, like the common law....” Id. ¶¶ 19-20. But for the accounting profession, the legislature has occupied the field. It has crafted a statute adopting the general rule that accountants owe no duty to those with whom they are not in privity and defining with considerable precision the exceptions to that general rule. See
¶72 Because the court correctly concluded that the Accountant did not owe the Buyers a duty under the Accountant Liability Statute, it correctly refused to give the jury instruction on fraudulent nondisclosure. See Hamilton, 827 P.2d at 238. We thus affirm the district court’s ruling on this point.
CONCLUSION
¶73 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment with respect to the Buyers’ claims against the Accountant, and we vacate the dismissal of the Buyers’ claims against the Broker. We therefore remand the case for further proceedings.
TOOMEY, Judge:
¶1 This case involves an auto-pedestrian accident. Marjorie Ann Brown appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Lennie Williams. Brown argues the court inappropriately applied workers’ compensation law in a negligence suit. She also argues summary judgment should have been denied because there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 In January 2012, Brown was injured in an auto-pedestrian accident while she was on her way to work for the Internal Revenue Service in its Ogden, Utah office. The IRS building site includes an employee-designated parking lot. For security purposes, a fence surrounds both the building and the parking lot. There is only one access point into the facility, which is controlled by third-party security personnel. To enter the facility, employees are required to show their IRS employee badges.
¶3 On the morning of the accident, after passing through security and parking her vehicle, Brown was walking through the
¶4 After her federal workers’ compensation claim was denied,2 Brown filed a third-party negligence suit against Williams. Williams moved for summary judgment, arguing that because the accident occurred on IRS premises, workers’ compensation law precluded the negligence suit under the exclusive remedy provision of the Utah Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act).3 Brown opposed summary judgment, arguing the Act did not apply and that the accident did not occur on IRS premises. Brown arrived at this conclusion because the IRS does not own the building or parking lot, and a private entity is responsible for the security of the premises. The district court granted Williams’s motion for summary judgment, concluding Brown was entitled to workers’ compensation, because under recent case law, an employer’s parking lot is considered a part of its premises; therefore, workers’ compensation was Brown’s exclusive remedy. Accordingly, the court dismissed Brown’s claim with prejudice. Brown appeals.
ISSUES AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶5 Brown raises two issues on appeal. First, she contends the district court should have applied the “course of employment” rules under tort law, rather than workers’ compensation law, to determine whether Brown and Williams acted within the course of their employment at the time of the accident. “Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard is a question of law, which we review for correctness.” Bad Ass Coffee Co. of Haw. v. Royal Aloha Int’l, LLC, 2015 UT App 303, ¶ 6, 365 P.3d 161.
¶6 Second, Brown contends summary judgment was inappropriate because there is a genuine issue of material fact. Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
ANALYSIS
¶7 There are two issues before us. First, whether the district court correctly applied workers’ compensation law in lieu of tort law, where Brown brought a negligence suit. Second, whether the court appropriately granted summary judgment.
I. Applicable Law
¶8 We must determine whether the district court correctly applied workers’ compensation law instead of tort law. To decide this issue, we first look to the Act. It states, in relevant part:
The right to recover compensation pursuant to this chapter for injuries sustained by an employee, whether resulting in death or not ... is the exclusive remedy against any officer, agent, or employee of the employer and the liabilities of the employer imposed by this chapter is in place of any and all other civil liability whatsoever, at common law or otherwise, to the employee ... on account of any accident or injury or death, in any way contracted, sustained, aggravated, or incurred by the employee in the course of or because of or arising out of the employee’s employment, and an action at law may not be maintained against an ... employee of the employer based upon any accident, injury, or death of an employee.
¶9 Moreover, as the Utah Supreme Court has stated, the Act “should be liberally construed,” and where there is doubt as to whether a worker qualifies as an employee under the Act, it should be resolved in favor of determining that the worker is an employee. Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 1999 UT 77, ¶¶ 18-19, 985 P.2d 243 (determining that a temporary employee qualified as an employee under the Act); Bennett v. Indus. Comm’n of Utah, 726 P.2d 427, 428, 430-31 (Utah 1986) (concluding that a subcontractor’s employee was an employee of the general contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation).
¶10 To determine whether Brown had the right to workers’ compensation, we must first determine whether, under Utah law, the accident occurred during the course of employment. See Hope v. Berrett, 756 P.2d 102, 103 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (“In determining whether or not a federal employee’s acts are within the scope of his employment, this Court is bound to apply state law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
¶11 As a general rule under workers’ compensation law in Utah, “an employee’s injury does not arise out of and occur in the course of employment if the injury is sustained while going to or coming from work.” Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm’n, 2007 UT 4, ¶ 19, 153 P.3d 179. This is referred to as the “coming and going rule.” Id. ¶ 27. Although this is the general rule, there are some exceptions. Relevant to our case is the “premises rule” exception. Under the premises rule, “the accident is covered if it occurs on the employer’s premises, even if the employee has not yet arrived at his work site or has already left the work site.” Soldier Creek Coal Co. v. Bailey, 709 P.2d 1165, 1166 (Utah 1985). Utah courts view the premises rule as a bright line test: if the accident occurred within the employer’s property lines, the employee acted within the course of her employment. See id. at 1167. This is “based on the logic that while the employee is on the employer’s premises, his connection with employment is both ‘physical and tangible.’” Id. (quoting 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 15.12(a) (1985)).
¶12 Applying the premises rule is not uncharted territory for this court. Indeed, in
¶13 Hope is controlling in the present case.5 There is no dispute that the accident here occurred within the fenced portion of the IRS property between two co-employees. There is likewise no dispute that the parking lot was designated for IRS employees. Accordingly, we conclude that the accident occurred on IRS premises and that Brown has a right to workers’ compensation benefits. Thus, workers’ compensation benefits are Brown’s exclusive remedy, and the district court properly dismissed Brown’s negligence claim.
II. Summary Judgment
¶14 Brown argues the district court “made findings of fact on disputed issues of critically important fact,” and that summary judgment is inappropriate. We disagree with Brown’s characterization of the court’s determinations.
¶15 The Utah Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to grant summary judgment only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
¶16 Even after recognizing that Brown makes a legal argument, and addressing it in that light, we are not persuaded. Consider the situation, as here, where an employer rents its workspace. If ownership and control were dispositive to the premises rule analysis, the employer’s own building would not be considered a part of its premises. In addition, Brown does not cite any case law or direct us to any provision of the Act requiring that an employer own and control its parking lot to establish that the space is a part of the employer’s premises. This stance conflicts with the majority rule applied in these situations:
As to parking lots owned by the employer, or maintained by the employer for its employees, practically all jurisdictions now consider them part of the “premises,” whether within the main company premis
es or separated from it. This rule is by no means confined to parking lots owned, controlled, or maintained by the employer. The doctrine has been applied when the lot, although not owned by the employer, was exclusively used, or used with the owner’s special permission, or just used, by the employees of this employer.
2 Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 13.04(2)(a) (Matthew Bender rev. ed. (2016)) (footnotes omitted). Although it appears no Utah case has specifically adopted the majority rule as it relates to parking lots, we see no reason it would not apply in the circumstances here. The parking lot rule squarely aligns with our policy of liberally construing the Act to resolve doubts in favor of finding that the employee was in the course of employment. See Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning, 1999 UT 77, ¶¶ 18-19, 985 P.2d 243. Accordingly, the court properly granted summary judgment, as there was no genuine issue of material fact, and Williams was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
CONCLUSION
¶17 We conclude the district court correctly applied workers’ compensation law. In addition, summary judgment was appropriate because workers’ compensation benefits are Brown’s exclusive remedy and there were no material issues of fact for trial.
¶18 Affirmed.
STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Bradley Edward BOURK, Appellant.
No. 20141069-CA
Court of Appeals of Utah.
Filed February 16, 2017
2017 UT App 32
Joel J. Kittrell and Kristina H. Ruedas, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellant. Sean D. Reyes and Thomas B. Brunker, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee. Judge J. Frederic Voros Jr. authored this Opinion, in which Judges David N. Mortensen and Jill M. Pohlman concurred.
Opinion
VOROS, Judge:
¶1 Defendant Bradley Edward Bourk was convicted of aggravated robbery. The aggravating factor was his use of a dangerous weapon. A victim of the crime testified that Bourk “put his hand into his jacket and pulled out a gun.” Bourk contends on appeal that the trial evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding that he used a danger-