Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an *520 order of August 10, 1990, entered by the trial court granting partial summary disposition to defendant KFC Manufacturing Corporation only, MCR 2.604(A). We affirm.
In the initial complaint, filed against Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation, plaintiff Perry Isom claimed he was severely injured on June 23, 1986, when an allegedly defective chicken cooker exploded at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant where he was employed. 1 Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation filed a motion for summary disposition, contending it was plaintiff’s employer and entitled to the benefit of the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.131; MSA 17.237(131). Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation with prejudice. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed amended complaints alleging products liability against several parties, including KFC National Management Company and KFC Manufacturing Corporation. Defendants submitted affidavits that established that Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation was a holding company that held all the stock of KFC Corporation, and KFC Corporation was the parent of KFC National Management Company, a wholly owned subsidiary. Before 1979, KFC Manufacturing Corporation was also a wholly owned subsidiary of KFC Corporation. However, on August 31, 1979, KFC Manufacturing Corporation merged with and into KFC National Management Company and became a division of KFC National Management Company. Since the merger, KFC Manufacturing Corporation has ceased to exist as a separate entity.
The allegedly defective chicken cooker was originally built by KFC Manufacturing Corporation in *521 1972, and subsequently rebuilt by KFC Manufacturing Corporation in 1986 when KFC Manufacturing Corporation functioned as a division of KFC National Management Company.
On appeal, plaintiffs contend that KFC Manufacturing Corporation should not be entitled to the benefit of the exclusive remedy provision under the wdca because KFC Manufacturing Corporation existed as a separate legal entity when it manufactured the chicken cooker in question; alternatively, plaintiffs argue that even if KFC Manufacturing Corporation is deemed to be plaintiff Perry Isom’s employer, it had a separate and distinct relationship with plaintiffs so that the dual-capacity doctrine applies and prevents KFC Manufacturing Corporation from accepting tort liability. We disagree.
When determining whether a parent or subsidiary corporation is an employer for purposes of the wdca, the test to apply is the economic reality test, which involves considering the facts surrounding the employment relationship.
Wells v Firestone Tire & Rubber Co,
Plaintiffs contend that KFC Manufacturing Corporation existed independently of the parent corporations when the defective product was first manufactured and, therefore, this suit is not barred by the wdca. However, plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to indicate that KFC Manufacturing Corporation existed as a separate legal entity at the time of plaintiffs’ injuries.
Handley v Wyandotte Chemicals Corp,
Even if this Court were to find that KFC Manufacturing Corporation was a separate legal entity, under the facts and circumstances of this case we believe that KFC Manufacturing Corporation would be entitled to a "reverse-piercing” of its corporate veil, pursuant to
Wells, supra,
p 650.
Major v Auto Club Ins Ass’n,
In the alternative, plaintiffs argue that the dual-capacity doctrine should apply in this case on the basis of KFC Manufacturing Corporation’s separate identity as a manufacturer of the allegedly defective product. We disagree. The application of this doctrine is limited to those situations where the second identity of an employer is completely distinct from its status as an employer and the second identity is recognized by established standards under the law as a separate legal persona. Wells, supra, p 653.
In this case, Perry Isom’s relationship to KFC Manufacturing Corporation is not separate and distinct from the employment relationship because his use of the allegedly defective product arose out of the employment relationship. Consequently, the dual-capacity doctrine is inapplicable. Wells, supra, p 653; Handley, supra, pp 429-430.
Plaintiffs have suggested that this Court should resolve this case by considering decisions from other jurisdictions. We decline to do so because we are bound to apply the tests adopted by the Michigan Supreme Court for this precise issue, as discussed in Wells, supra. In addition, we believe the cases submitted from other states are distinguishable on the facts surrounding the mergers involved and the prior corporations that existed.
Plaintiffs have raised additional arguments that address alternative grounds the trial court gave for granting summary disposition. We need not reach those issues, given our conclusion that plaintiffs’ action against KFC Manufacturing Corporation was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the wdca.
Affirmed.
Notes
His wife, Deborah Isom, also sought damages for loss of consortium as a result of her husband’s injuries.