News
WC Bar Extends To Corporate Relatives (PA)
July 8, 2022
Share to:
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently held that the workers’ compensation bar extends to provide immunity to an entity who managed and owned the business that employed the injured plaintiff at the time of his injury. However, the fact pattern is rather unique, so the result does not necessarily change the current legal landscape.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The <a href="https://www.wcmlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/plaintiff.pdf">plaintiff</a> in the case was injured by heavy machinery while working on a construction site. The defendant construction company held a general commercial liability insurance policy for the machinery in question. Importantly, the plaintiff was employed by an LLC that was co-owned by defendant construction company and another individual. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the grounds that (a) the plaintiff’s suit was barred by the employer immunity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”) and (b) the plaintiff’s suit was barred pursuant to the co-employee immunity provision of the WCA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Because the defendant did not directly employ the plaintiff and did not exert exclusive control over the LLC that employed the plaintiff, the Superior Court concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant was the plaintiff's “employer” under the WCA. Thus, the Superior Court disagreed with the trial court’s first ground for summary judgment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">However, the Superior Court cited the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which has held that the immunity granted by the WCA to workers to protect them from common-law suits filed by their injured co-workers is based upon the same underlying immunity that the WCA affords to employers. In this case, the Superior Court held that co-employee immunity under the WCA is not confined to rank-and-file workers but extends to the managers and executives of an employer and even individuals with an ownership interest in the employer. The Superior Court held that the defendant construction company was the plaintiff’s co-employee under the WCA and, therefore, was entitled to immunity from the plaintiff’s lawsuit. Enterprising attorneys should therefore look at the corporate constellations to determine if WC immunity is an appropriate defense.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to Jason Laicha for his contribution to this article. Should you have any questions, please contact <a href="mailto:mcare@wcmlaw.com">Matthew Care</a>.</p>