461
S.W.3d 876 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)
Full Opinion: [Harman v. Manheim Remarketing, Inc]
Code(s): C012 Procedural; C023 Insurance Coverage
Factual
Background:
Claimant filed a personal injury action
in trial court against Employer for negligence after he sustained injuries
resulting from a slip and fall on black ice on Employer’s premises. Claimant
was a security guard, employed by Securitas Securities Services USA, but worked
at Manheim. Employer admitted that it was not insured under Securitas’ Workers’
Compensation Insurance Policy. Claimant
filed a workers’ compensation claim against Securitas only, and the Stipulation
for Compromise Settlement of that claim only listed Securitas as the Employer.
Civil Court Decision:
Employer filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment asserting that Claimant’s negligence claim fails as a matter of law as
Manheim is the statutory employer, and therefore, Claimant’s exclusive remedy
is through Workers’ Compensation. Claimant conceded that he was a statutory
employee of Employer at the time of his fall; however, Claimant argued that
Employer is not entitled to summary judgment because §287.280.1 gives him the
right to bring a civil action against Employer if Employer failed to insure its
full Workers’ Compensation liability. Employer argued that there is nothing in
§287.280.1 which requires it to prove that it provided workers’ compensation
insurance to be allowed immunity in a civil action pursuant to §287.120.
Analysis/Holding:
The Court of Appeals found Manheim to be
the Employer under §287.280.1, finding that, “If the Employer or group of
employers failed to comply with this section, an injured employee… may elect to
bring an action against such employer or group of employers to recover damages
for personal injury or death…..”. It was noted that this section was “intended
to force employers to insure or bear the sanction or penalty of a partially
defense free suit at the employee’s election” Mays v. Williams, 494 S.W.2d 289, 291 (Mo. Banc 1973). Under strict
construction, it found that Employer had within its possession and control all
the knowledge, information, and documentation necessary to easily demonstrate
its compliance with the insurance requirement of §287.208.1.. As such, Employer
failed to prove an uncontroverted fact necessary to support its affirmative
defense that the Workers’ Compensation Act barred Claimant’s Civil Action.
Cause reversed and remanded.
The Takeaway:
For an
Employer to invoke the defense of exclusive remedy in a civil action brought by
an injured employee, it must prove it is entitled to such protection by showing
it carried workers’ compensation insurance. In the alternative, if an Employer
does not elect to carry workers’ compensation insurance, Employee may elect to
sue Employer in a civil action.