Casey E. Lewis v. Alabama Power Company

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 10/14/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100815 Casey E. Lewis v. Alabama Power Company Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-08-900340) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . C a s e y E. L e w i s a p p e a l s the Mobile Circuit Court f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y i n favor ("APCo") on c l a i m s o f n e g l i g e n c e an accident Lewis o f A l a b a m a Power Company and wantonness a r i s i n g o u t o f suffered while working a t an APCo plant. 2100815 For the reasons s t a t e d h e r e i n , remand t h e The we reverse that and cause f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t o f and APCo's summary-judgment m o t i o n , c o n s i d e r e d favorable judgment to Lewis, see DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P.C., 792 the following pertinent Nationwide Prop. So. 2d 369, facts. 372 i n opposition i n the & Cas. light Ins. ( A l a . 2000), to most Co. v. reveals Lewis i s a boilermaker. At t h e t i m e o f h i s i n j u r i e s made t h e b a s i s o f t h e p r e s e n t a c t i o n , he was e m p l o y e d by F l u o r M a i n t e n a n c e S e r v i c e s , I n c . a t APCo's B a r r y A l t h o u g h he the plant Steam P l a n t i n M o b i l e C o u n t y was pursuant e m p l o y e d by to a a g r e e m e n t " ) b e t w e e n F l u o r and ("SCS"). performing ("the F l u o r , L e w i s was contract ("Fluor"), ("the plant"). working labor broker S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s , A l t h o u g h i t i s a s e p a r a t e e n t i t y f r o m APCo, SCS construction services for APCo at the at Inc. was plant. 1 An a f f i d a v i t s u b m i t t e d by APCo i n s u p p o r t o f i t s summaryj u d g m e n t m o t i o n d e s c r i b e d SCS as f o l l o w s : 1 " [ S C S ] i s a ' c e n t r a l i z e d s e r v i c e company' o f The S o u t h e r n Company ... that provides a v a r i e t y of s e r v i c e s t o o t h e r S o u t h e r n Company s u b s i d i a r i e s , i n c l u d i n g [ A P C o ] , a t c o s t and upon r e q u e s t . Such services include accounting, engineering, marketing, data processing, contract administration, human r e s o u r c e s , i n s u r a n c e and o t h e r s e r v i c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r b u s i n e s s and o p e r a t i o n s . I n so d o i n g , SCS 2 2100815 Pursuant to the to SCS l a b o r b r o k e r a g r e e m e n t , F l u o r was temporary craft labor, foremen, and to provide additional p e r s o n n e l f o r the performance of c o n s t r u c t i o n s e r v i c e s at p l a n t , f o r w h i c h SCS rate. The was labor broker t o pay F l u o r on a p e r - p e r s o n , agreement p r o v i d e d hourly that " [ a ] l l work and a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e c r a f t l a b o r , f o r e m e n and s u p e r v i s o r s o t h e r p e r s o n n e l o f [ F l u o r ] a t t h e P r o j e c t s h a l l be and s c h e d u l e d by [ S C S ] The direct l a b o r b r o k e r agreement r e q u i r e d F l u o r to procure w o r k e r s ' compensation insurance i t s employees a t i t s expense, but t h a t the c o s t of t h a t i n s u r a n c e SCS paid labor to Fluor broker agreement b e t w e e n F l u o r and as an f o r the SCS, w o u l d be recited SCS that purported provided i n c l u d e d i n the labor. i t was Although entered to execute the for rate the into agreement a g e n t f o r APCo. Lewis began w o r k i n g the the agreement a l s o p r o v i s i o n of and coordinated and s h a l l be p e r f o r m e d u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l o f [ S C S ] . " the outset of his at work a t the plant the plant, i n November 2007. he signed a document always acts as agent f o r the client corporate a f f i l i a t e , w h i c h i n t h i s c a s e was [ A P C o ] . With regard to [APCo]'s Barry Steam P l a n t i n B u c k s , Alabama, the scope of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i n c l u d e d construction services for [APCo]." 3 At 2100815 titled "Project Security Rules ("the p r o j e c t - r u l e s document"). other f o r Labor Broker Employees" T h a t document s t a t e d , among things: " I have r e c e i v e d a n d r e a d a c o p y o f t h e S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s P r o j e c t S e c u r i t y R u l e s f o r L a b o r B r o k e r Employees, and I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e s e r u l e s may be f o l l o w e d b y d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n o r d i s m i s s a l b y my e m p l o y e r (Fluor). I f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d t h a t v i o l a t o r s o f t h e s e r u l e s may be removed f r o m t h e p r o j e c t a n d / o r p r o p e r t y a n d S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s may r e f u s e t o r e a d m i t them for extended periods of time. " I f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d and acknowledge t h a t w h i l e my wages, h o u r s , a n d o t h e r t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f employment a r e s e t b y my g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r , F l u o r , and my u n i o n , i f any, t h a t my g e n e r a l employer s e r v e s o n l y as a l a b o r b r o k e r f o r S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s a t t h i s p r o j e c t a n d t h a t my work w i l l be subject to the d i r e c t i o n , control, and t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f b o t h S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s a n d my g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r w h i l e w o r k i n g on t h i s p r o j e c t . I f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d t h i s a n d h e r e b y g i v e my e x p r e s s c o n s e n t t o t h i s w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i l e I am employed a t t h i s p r o j e c t . " Lewis signed In t h i s document on November 13, 2007. h i s deposition, Lewis stated that a Fluor employee c o n d u c t e d h i s o r i e n t a t i o n f o r t h e p r o j e c t and t h a t h i s foreman a t t h e p r o j e c t was a l s o a F l u o r e m p l o y e e . worked the n i g h t his shifts, Lewis He s t a t e d t h a t he s h i f t and t h a t , a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f each o f h i s f o r e m a n c o n d u c t e d a s a f e t y m e e t i n g a n d gave h i s work i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the night. 4 Regarding the 2100815 involvement of SCS o r APCo i n t h e work that was being p e r f o r m e d , L e w i s t e s t i f i e d as f o l l o w s : "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r APCo:] Now d i d y o u s e e t h e S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s , A l a b a m a Power Company p e o p l e t h e r e on t h a t n i g h t s h i f t ? "A. Wendell, think what they c o o r d i n a t o r , he was up t h e r e t a l k i n g and d i f f e r e n t f o r e m e n a n d s t u f f . "Q. Wendell? "A. called the w i t h Lou Lou I b e l i e v e t h a t was h i s name. "Q. Wendell. h a t s on? D i d he h a v e one o f t h o s e w h i t e "A. Yes, s i r . "Q. W i t h t h e Power Company l o g o on i t ? "A. Yes, s i r . "Q. A n d he was t a l k i n g t o who now? "A. hard The f o r e m e n , L o u L o u , t h e c o o r d i n a t o r . "Q. A n d what a b o u t Mr. S t o k e s [, a F l u o r e m p l o y e e ] , was he i n on some o f t h e s e c o n f e r e n c e s o r m e e t i n g s ? "A. I don't know i f t h e y were "Q. J u s t t a l k i n g a b o u t w h a t ' s g o i n g t o be d o n e ? "A. I guess t h a t ' s r e a l l y d o n ' t know. what 5 meetings. they talked about. I 2100815 "Q. G e n e r a l l y when y o u w o u l d s e e them t a l k i n g t o g e t h e r , w o u l d y o u r i g h t a f t e r t h a t g e t y o u r work instructions f o r that s h i f t ? "A. The No." following exchange also occurred during Lewis's deposition: "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r APCo:] D i d y o u s e e -- now y o u know what S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s i s , y o u know who that i s ? "A. A l a b a m a Power. "Q. S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s a n d A l a b a m a mean one [and] t h e same t h i n g t o y o u ? "A. Power To me t h e y a r e , y e s . " On J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2008, L e w i s was i n j u r e d w h i l e w o r k i n g a t the plant. ductwork. that, He was d e t a c h i n g a l a r g e steel plate when a c t i v a t e d , plate would lift from t h e ductwork, with the a i rtuggers. onto the s t e e l detaching some The s t e e l p l a t e was a t t a c h e d t o two " a i r t u g g e r s " or lower d e p e n d i n g on w h i c h o f two h a n d l e s was p u l l e d . the from plate the s t e e l plate A f t e r Lewis c u t he a t t e m p t e d t o l i f t the plate When t h e p l a t e d i d n o t move, he s t e p p e d t o determine from t h e ductwork. why the plate was n o t W h i l e he was s t a n d i n g on t h e p l a t e , i t became d i s l o d g e d a n d he a n d t h e p l a t e were p r o p e l l e d into the a i r , causing i n j u r i e s t o Lewis, i n c l u d i n g 6 fractures 2100815 in h i s scapula and h i s f o r e a r m and b u r n s and c u t s on h i s b a c k . Lewis r e c e i v e d medical treatment f o r h i s i n j u r i e s . r e t u r n t o work a t t h e On M a r c h 6, Tool-Smith Company. In his injured during asserted injured the t h a t the had Company. or He Compensation Act"), action against ("Tool-Smith"), complaint, he and that alleged The he Fluor, i n the using "on" p r o p e l l e d u p w a r d and the a i r t u g g e r had maintained by 2 Southern had been c o u r s e o f h i s employment w i t h F l u o r . become s t u c k Lewis a l l e g e d t h a t repaired, Inc. a i r t u g g e r he was s t e e l p l a t e t o be not plant. 2008, L e w i s f i l e d an Company, He d i d He at the t i m e he was position, causing the causing his injuries. b e e n owned, provided, Tool-Smith and The Southern sought b e n e f i t s p u r s u a n t t o the Alabama W o r k e r s ' Act, § against Fluor. T o o l - S m i t h and t h e i r negligence The 25-5-1 He et seq., s o u g h t an Ala. Code 1975 a w a r d o f damages S o u t h e r n Company f o r what he ("the against alleged and w a n t o n n e s s i n f a i l i n g t o m a i n t a i n was the a i r t u g g e r i n a s a f e c o n d i t i o n by f a i l i n g t o i n s t a l l , m a i n t a i n , or L e w i s o r i g i n a l l y named F l u o r as " F l u o r D a n i e l S e r v i c e s Corporation." He l a t e r amended t h e name o f F l u o r t o " F l u o r Maintenance S e r v i c e s , Inc." 2 7 2100815 repair the switch or other device that operated the a i r tugger. By s t i p u l a t i o n , The S o u t h e r n Company was d i s m i s s e d f r o m the action. named Subsequently, APCo as a i n an amended defendant, stating complaint, t h e same allegations a g a i n s t APCo as he h a d a g a i n s t The S o u t h e r n Company. reached a settlement compensation claims, with Fluor a n d , on May 5, as to 2009, Lewis his Lewis workers' the t r i a l court e n t e r e d an o r d e r a p p r o v i n g t h a t s e t t l e m e n t . On S e p t e m b e r 17, 2010, APCo f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary judgment. APCo a r g u e d that i t was a " s p e c i a l employer" of L e w i s a n d , as a r e s u l t , t h a t L e w i s ' s e x c l u s i v e remedy a g a i n s t it was Power for benefits under the A c t . Co., 599 So. 2d 27, 28 remedy' p r o v i s i o n See Rhodes v. A l a b a m a ( A l a . 1992) o f t h e A l a b a m a Workmen's ("The 'exclusive Compensation Act has b e e n e x t e n d e d t o i n c l u d e ' s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r s , ' d e s c r i b e d as ' i n d i v i d u a l s o r b u s i n e s s e s who, f o r p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s , may be c o n s i d e r e d primary or co-employers of the i n j u r e d ( q u o t i n g Tweedy v . T e n n e s s e e employee.'" V a l l e y A u t h . , 882 F.2d 477, 479 (11th C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ) ) . 8 2100815 APCo submitted affidavit with of employee manager at stated that, p l a n t , SCS costs an the SCS plant. while its In summary-judgment who his performing served affidavit, "APCo i s r e s p o n s i b l e i t s agency f u n c t i o n s f o r any liabilities performance of i t s agency o b l i g a t i o n s . " stated, in pertinent a SCS services manager at the "passes through i t s t o A P C o " ; and SCS The incurs in that the manager f u r t h e r part: "4. W h i l e SCS was t h e named p a r t y (as APCo's a g e n t ) and a d m i n i s t r a t e d t h e L a b o r B r o k e r A g r e e m e n t , t h e A g r e e m e n t was c a r r i e d out and enforced by 7\ Dr< ^ APCo "5. I n c a r r y i n g o u t and e n f o r c i n g t h e L a b o r Broker Agreement, APCo arranged for worker's compensation insurance coverage for the Fluor p e r s o n n e l by r e q u i r i n g F l u o r t o p r o c u r e and m a i n t a i n that insurance. APCo p a i d f o r t h e c o s t o f t h a t i n s u r a n c e by i n c l u d i n g t h a t c o s t i n t h e r a t e p a i d t o Fluor for i t s personnel "6. APCo p a i d a w e e k l y sum t o F l u o r f o r t h e f u r n i s h i n g of the p e r s o n n e l APCo a l s o k e p t up w i t h t h e h o u r s o f t h e F l u o r p e r s o n n e l and a r r a n g e d f o r and r e i m b u r s e d F l u o r f o r t h e p a y c h e c k s i s s u e d t o those employees. "7. U n d e r t h e L a b o r B r o k e r A g r e e m e n t , APCo had t h e r i g h t t o c o n t r o l and t o s u p e r v i s e t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e work p e r f o r m e d by t h e F l u o r p e r s o n n e l . In a d d i t i o n , APCo had t h e r i g h t t o deny F l u o r p e r s o n n e l r e a d m i s s i o n t o t h e work a t B a r r y Steam P l a n t " 9 the construction the construction a c t e d as APCo's a g e n t ; t h a t SCS of p e r f o r m i n g as motion 2100815 Lewis filed a response c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of i t s e l f its in which he disputed APCo's as h i s s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r as w e l l a s s e r t i o n of immunity to t o r t l i a b i l i t y a r i s i n g from t h a t characterization. Among o t h e r t h i n g s , Lewis argued t h a t not e n t i t y with w h i c h F l u o r had APCo, was provide SCS, the not provided contracted SCS, to l a b o r ; t h a t the l a b o r b r o k e r agreement i n d i c a t e d t h a t APCo, w o u l d exercise p e r f o r m e d by F l u o r p e r s o n n e l ; that as f o r c o n t r o l and L e w i s had from other control over t h a t he Fluor personnel, not t o w h e t h e r L e w i s had e m p l o y e r , and, he a s s e r t e d , be n o t by APCo; and t o o k h i s work i n s t r u c t i o n s f r o m APCo o r Thus, he a r g u e d , t h e r e e x i s t e d , a t t h e v e r y o f f a c t as work t o t h a t t h e p r o j e c t - r u l e s document s u p e r v i s i o n by SCS, testified the SCS employees. least, a question a c c e p t e d APCo as h i s s p e c i a l as a r e s u l t APCo was not entitled t o a summary j u d g m e n t . On motion December and 10, entered 2010, a the summary trial court judgment granted in its APCo's favor. S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d a summary-judgment m o t i o n t h a t T o o l - S m i t h had filed, and i t entered an o r d e r m a k i n g i t s summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f APCo a f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. Lewis 10 filed an appeal to our 2100815 supreme court, which transferred p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code In Gaut v. Medrano, 630 So. the appeal this court 1975. 2d 362 ( A l a . 1993), supreme c o u r t s e t f o r t h t h e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s , appropriate to s t a n d a r d of review, r e l a t i v e our as w e l l as t h e to the e n t r y of summary j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h e s p e c i a l - e m p l o y e r d o c t r i n e : "Alabama Code 1975, § 25-5-53, p r o v i d e s t h a t an a c t i o n brought under the Workers' Compensation A c t i s t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy f o r an e m p l o y e e ' s injuries s u s t a i n e d i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment. Rhodes v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 599 So. 2d 27 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . The e x c l u s i v i t y b a r i s an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e . R u l e 8 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. T h e r e f o r e , on a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t , t h e d e f e n d a n t s have t h e b u r d e n o f establishing a prima f a c i e showing as t o e a c h element of the defense of e x c l u s i v i t y ; i f the defendants are able t o c a r r y t h i s burden, then the plaintiff must p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to overcome t h i s p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . A [ l a ] . R. C i v . P. 56; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. Substantial e v i d e n c e has b e e n d e f i n e d as 'evidence of such w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 54 7 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . Also, i n reviewing a summary j u d g m e n t , we must r e s o l v e a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s i n f a v o r o f t h e nonmovant. H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r G u t h r i e , I n c . , 564 So. 2d 412 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . "The exclusive remedy p r o v i s i o n e x t e n d s to ' s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r s , ' w h i c h have b e e n d e s c r i b e d as 'individuals or b u s i n e s s e s who, for practical p u r p o s e s , may be c o n s i d e r e d p r i m a r y o r c o - e m p l o y e r s of the i n j u r e d employee.' Rhodes, s u p r a , a t 28 ( q u o t i n g Tweedy v. T e n n e s s e e V a l l e y A u t h o r i t y , 882 11 a 2100815 F.2d 477, 479 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . I n T e r r y v. Read S t e e l P r o d u c t s , 430 So. 2 d 862 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , t h i s Court adopted a three-pronged t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g when an employee o f a g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r c a n become t h e employee o f a ' s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r ' f o r p u r p o s e s o f workers' compensation: "'"When a g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r l e n d s an employee t o a s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r , t h e s p e c i a l employer becomes liable f o r workmens' compensation [ a n d thus immune from l i a b i l i t y f o r t o r t a c t i o n s brought by t h e s p e c i a l employee] only i f " ' " ( a ) t h e employee h a s made a contract of h i r e , express or implied, with the special employer; " ' " ( b ) t h e w o r k b e i n g done is essentially that of the s p e c i a l employer; and "'"(c) t h e s p e c i a l employer has the r i g h t t o control the d e t a i l s o f t h e work. "'"When a l l t h r e e of the above c o n d i t i o n s a r e s a t i s f i e d i n r e l a t i o n t o both employers, both employers are liable for workmens' c o m p e n s a t i o n . " ' "430 So. 2 d a t 865 ( q u o t i n g 1C A. L a r s o n , The Law o f Workmen's Compensation, § 48 (1980)). The r e q u i r e m e n t o f a c o n t r a c t o f h i r e comports d i r e c t l y w i t h o u r W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t , w h i c h d e f i n e s an 'employee' a s a ' p e r s o n i n t h e s e r v i c e o f a n o t h e r under any c o n t r a c t o f h i r e , e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d , o r a l or w r i t t e n . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 1 ( 5 ) . " 630 So. 2d a t 364 ( f o o t n o t e omitted). 12 2100815 Lewis contends that there is a question of fact r e g a r d to the f i r s t element of the s p e c i a l - e m p l o y e r i.e., whether expressed things, or he entered implied, t h a t he with into a contract APCo. He of argues, never consented to enter with doctrine, employment, among other into a contract of employment w i t h APCo, e i t h e r e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i e d l y , and that t h e e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s , a t most, t h a t he had into a c o n t r a c t o f employment w i t h SCS, and distinct entered a company t h a t i s separate f r o m APCo. In Gaut, our has entered supreme c o u r t into an s t a t e d t h a t whether a worker expressed employment w i t h a p u r p o r t e d or implied contract s p e c i a l employer " i s an i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , f o r when a p e r s o n e n t e r s i n t o an e m p l o y e r - e m p l o y e e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a p a r t y , t h a t p e r s o n g i v e s up v a l u a b l e rights, i n c l u d i n g t h e common l a w r i g h t t o b r i n g an a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y f o r any i n j u r y he m i g h t s u f f e r while a c t i n g i n the scope of h i s employment. P r o f e s s o r L a r s o n makes t h i s p o i n t i n h i s t r e a t i s e : "'Although the l e n t - s e r v a n t d o c t r i n e i s a f a m i l i a r one a t common l a w , and has p r o d u c e d some o f t h e most v e n e r a b l e and most i n t r i c a t e c a s e s i n t h e l a w o f m a s t e r and s e r v a n t , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o s t r e s s once more that the workmen's compensation l e n t - e m p l o y e e p r o b l e m i s d i f f e r e n t i n one significant respect: There can be no compensation l i a b i l i t y i n the absence of a c o n t r a c t o f h i r e b e t w e e n t h e e m p l o y e e and 13 of 2100815 the borrowing employer. For vicarious liability purposes, the spotlight was e n t i r e l y on t h e two e m p l o y e r s and what t h e y a g r e e d , how t h e y d i v i d e d c o n t r o l , how t h e y s h a r e d payment, and whose work, as b e t w e e n t h e m s e l v e s , was b e i n g done. No one p a i d much a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e m p l o y e e o r c a r e d w h e t h e r he h a d c o n s e n t e d t o t h e t r a n s f e r o f his allegiance, since, after a l l , his r i g h t s were n o t u s u a l l y as a p r a c t i c a l matter involved in the suit. In c o m p e n s a t i o n l a w , t h e s p o t l i g h t must now be t u r n e d upon t h e e m p l o y e e , f o r t h e first q u e s t i o n o f a l l i s : D i d he make a c o n t r a c t of h i r e w i t h t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r ? If this q u e s t i o n c a n n o t be a n s w e r e d " y e s , " the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s c l o s e d , and t h e r e i s no n e e d t o go on i n t o t e s t s o f relative c o n t r o l and t h e l i k e . " ' T h i s must n e c e s s a r i l y be s o , s i n c e the employee l o s e s c e r t a i n r i g h t s a l o n g w i t h t h o s e he g a i n s when he s t r i k e s up a new employment r e l a t i o n . M o s t i m p o r t a n t o f a l l , he l o s e s t h e r i g h t t o sue t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r a t common l a w f o r n e g l i g e n c e ; and when t h e q u e s t i o n has b e e n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s f o r m , t h e c o u r t s have u s u a l l y b e e n v i g i l a n t i n i n s i s t i n g upon a s h o w i n g o f a d e l i b e r a t e and i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t by the e m p l o y e e b e f o r e employment r e l a t i o n w i l l be h e l d a b a r t o common-law s u i t . ' "[1C A.] L a r s o n , [The Law o f Workmen's C o m p e n s a t i o n ] §§ 48.11 and 48.12 [ ( 1 9 8 0 ) ] . " G a u t , 630 In So. the 2d a t 365 present (emphasis case, we added). conclude t h a t APCo failed p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence demonstrating t h a t Lewis 14 to entered 2100815 i n t o an e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t Lewis signed his consenting employer, Fluor, of h i r e with i t . The o n l y t o c o n t r o l b y any e n t i t y was that t h e w o r k he d i d on t h e p r o j e c t other than document. the p r o j e c t - r u l e s p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , t h a t document p r o v i d e d document As that Lewis consented at the p l a n t would "be s u b j e c t t o t h e d i r e c t i o n , c o n t r o l , a n d t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f " SCS and Fluor. APCo i s m e n t i o n e d i n t h a t document o n l y o n c e , i n a s e c t i o n p r o v i d i n g that the possession and of c e l l u l a r telephones cameras was p r o h i b i t e d w i t h o u t t h e p e r m i s s i o n authorized o f APCo's representative. APCo a r g u e s t h a t t h e p r o j e c t - r u l e s document constitutes an e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t o f h i r e b e t w e e n L e w i s a n d APCo b e c a u s e SCS a c t e d as i t s a g e n t on t h e p r o j e c t and b e c a u s e L e w i s APCo and SCS t o be t h e same e n t i t y . very w e l l be t h a t construction question and services However, a l t h o u g h i t may as APCo's f o r APCo a g e n t when p e r f o r m i n g at the p l a n t , i n the p r e s e n t case i s whether there informed contract SCS a c t e d consent on t h e p a r t o f employment with APCo. L e w i s knew SCS was a c t i n g on b e h a l f considered of Lewis Without the was relevant deliberate to enter into a showing a that o f APCo as i t s a g e n t and t h a t L e w i s knew t h a t , b y s i g n i n g t h e p r o j e c t - r u l e s document, 15 2100815 he was e n t e r i n g i n t o a c o n t r a c t o f employment w i t h APCo r a t h e r t h a n SCS, i t c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t L e w i s d e l i b e r a t e l y c o n s e n t e d t o an employment r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Lewis's d e p o s i t i o n SCS APCo. t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he thought and APCo were t h e same e n t i t y i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e o f express-contract issue. t o be a m b i g u o u s . That, a t the time of Lewis's d e p o s i t i o n , and APCo "mean[t] one the We f i n d t h a t t e s t i m o n y , q u o t e d a b o v e , [and] t h e same t h i n g " t o h i m does SCS not mean t h a t he h a d t h a t same b e l i e f d u r i n g t h e t i m e he w o r k e d on the p r o j e c t at the p l a n t . Lewis k n o w i n g l y c o n s e n t e d t o an employment r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h APCo, i t is relevant. that For purposes of d e t e r m i n i n g whether the latter Furthermore, testimony, Lewis related entities, period, the former, that a f a c t - f i n d e r could conclude that, meant t h a t not not that they APCo and were SCS is by were c l o s e l y incapable of having d i f f e r e n t e m p l o y e e s s e r v i n g i n t e r e s t s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e common to the require two companies. Thus, a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r the e x p r e s s - c o n t r a c t Lewis's testimony does o f l a w i n APCo's f a v o r as not to issue. B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t , u n d e r t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e p a r t i e s , t h e summary j u d g m e n t c o u l d n o t be p r e d i c a t e d 16 on 2100815 a finding t h a t L e w i s had entered into an express employment c o n t r a c t w i t h APCo, we t u r n t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r consent to evidence. employment In Co., employment the special 557 So. 2d agency entity provided an implied implied 1238 see 623 So. 2d 1050, the workers' employer, of factors, control Pinson ( A l a . 1990); special the contract t o the a c t i n g as a l a b o r b r o k e r the from l o o k a t a number o f employer, 1236, for A l a b a m a Power Co., be employee s u b m i t t e d of g e n e r a l e m p l o y e r was could whether courts w i l l i n c l u d i n g whether the Power APCo determining employment e x i s t s , supervision by Lewis's v. and Alabama whether the or a temporary see Hicks v. 1054-55 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; w h i c h compensation insurance, see P i n s o n , 557 So. 2d a t 1238; and " ' " w h e t h e r t h e employment w i t h the borrowing of such d u r a t i o n t h a t the employee e m p l o y e r was c o u l d be r e a s o n a b l y p r e s u m e d t o have e v a l u a t e d and in the risks Garner, 44 So. 2d a t 367, 766 F.2d of acquiesced h i s e m p l o y m e n t , " ' " G.UB.MK C o n s t r u c t o r s 3d 479, 488 ( A l a . 2010) ( q u o t i n g G a u t , 630 q u o t i n g i n t u r n V a n t e r p o o l v. Hess O i l V . I . 117, 122 (3d C i r . 1985)). f a c t o r s l e a d s us t o c o n c l u d e Our review of So. Corp., these t h a t a q u e s t i o n of f a c t e x i s t s 17 v. as 2100815 to whether Lewis i m p l i e d l y consented to the employment c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n APCo and As his work i n the would supervision that he Fluor of Lewis's work subject SCS, received not his not testimony those to the APCo. daily from an APCo employee. f r o m whom h i s both with i n s t r u c t i o n s and with regard testify, however, that At he or to no the received to the point that that who was extent to did Lewis the work an e m p l o y e e e m p l o y e r was simply d i s p o s i t i v e of the i s s u e of i m p l i e d consent. The agreement p r o v i d e d laborers to t h a t F l u o r was to provide likewise we note the affidavit 18 not labor broker i s no m e n t i o n o f t h e p r o v i s i o n o f l a b o r e r s by Although of Fluor. is APCo. for note s p e c i a l employer, there labor regard and another foreman knew next f a c t o r , whether the g e n e r a l supplying We receiving originated with APCo r a t h e r t h a n an e m p l o y e e o f SCS that testified i n s t r u c t i o n s from vague, i n s t r u c t i o n s he was The we direction, control, w h i c h t h o s e i n s t r u c t i o n s were g i v e n . specifically c o n t r o l o f APCo, Furthermore, Lewis work regarding i n s t r u c t i o n s was giving an p r o j e c t - r u l e s document, L e w i s a g r e e d be employee, of him. to whether Lewis s u b m i t t e d to the note t h a t , formation testimony SCS; Fluor of to SCS's 2100815 e m p l o y e e t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t SCS a c t e d on b e h a l f o f APCo i n a l l facets remains broker special o f c a r r y i n g o u t t h e l a b o r b r o k e r agreement, t h e f a c t that, unlike i n other cases, where the labor employer i n such employment-agency i s provided and l a b o r - directly a manner a s t o b r i n g to the home t o t h e e m p l o y e e t h e f a c t t h a t he o r s h e i s w o r k i n g d i r e c t l y for the special Central employer, s e e , e.g., B e c h t e l Petroleum Corp., presented i n support present case, v. Crown 495 So. 2d 1052 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , the evidence o f t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n including the labor broker agreement i n the and t h e p r o j e c t - r u l e s document, do n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t L e w i s was made aware t h a t he was b e i n g provided b y F l u o r t o APCo r a t h e r than t o SCS. As f o r the next factor, the evidence s u b m i t t e d r e f l e c t s t h a t APCo was o n l y the provision Lewis during agreement of workers' compensation Fluor t o procure, workers' compensation insurance part SCS indirectly h i s employment a t t h e p l a n t . required the insurance covering The l a b o r f o r i t s employees. that broker expense, A separate the rate would pay t o F l u o r f o r t h e l a b o r i t provided, 19 involved i n a t i t s own o f t h e agreement, however, p r o v i d e d parties that w h i c h was a 2100815 fixed amount, i n c l u d e d the cost of a l l insurance F l u o r r e q u i r e d t o p r o c u r e under the compensation APCo insurance. provided indicated in that of can be said that reimbursed SCS for APCo provided final factor, b o r r o w i n g employer was of compensation indirectly. "employment w i t h the o f s u c h d u r a t i o n " t h a t L e w i s " c o u l d be r e a s o n a b l y p r e s u m e d t o have e v a l u a t e d and risks i t Thus, t e c h n i c a l l y , workers' whether Lewis's motion a l l expenses i n s u r a n c e c o v e r i n g L e w i s , a l t h o u g h somewhat The workers' i t s summary-judgment i n c u r r e d under the l a b o r b r o k e r agreement. it including The a f f i d a v i t o f t h e SCS manager t h a t support APCo agreement, was h i s employment," does not a c q u i e s c e d i n the compel a finding as a m a t t e r of law t h a t Lewis i m p l i e d l y c o n s e n t e d t o a c o n t r a c t of employment w i t h APCo. itself, Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , the d u r a t i o n t h r e e months, does n o t , standing alone, lead to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t L e w i s h a d t o have known he was w o r k i n g f o r and e m p l o y e d by APCo. sufficient work he was the A l t h o u g h t h a t amount o f t i m e p r o b a b l y f o r Lewis to understand the r i s k s i n v o l v e d i n the p e r f o r m i n g , t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g would circumstances of this case, 20 was necessarily not, lead under him to 2100815 a s s o c i a t e t h o s e r i s k s w i t h employment by APCo, r a t h e r t h a n or SCS Fluor. H a v i n g r e v i e w e d t h e a b o v e - n o t e d f a c t o r s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t there are genuine i s s u e s Lewis entered APCo. B e c a u s e we have a l s o c o n c l u d e d t h a t , a t t h e v e r y into an of m a t e r i a l implied fact regarding contract of employment t h e r e were g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g Lewis expressly consented APCo, APCo was not to a entitled contract to a of summary whether with least, whether employment judgment on with its a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e b a s e d on t h e " s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r " d o c t r i n e . As a result, the trial court's c a u s e i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r REVERSED AND and the proceedings. REMANDED. Thomas, J . , judgment i s r e v e r s e d 3 concurs. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e Bryan, J., dissents, r e s u l t , without w r i t i n g . with w r i t i n g , which Pittman, J., joins. By so c o n c l u d i n g , we arguments f o r r e v e r s a l . 3 need 21 not consider Lewis's other 2100815 BRYAN, J u d g e , Because dissenting. I conclude t h a t A l a b a m a Power Company ("APCo") e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t i t was C a s e y E. L e w i s ' s s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r , respectfully dissent. Fluor Maintenance Services, I Inc. ( " F l u o r " ) , e m p l o y e d L e w i s , a n d F l u o r e x e c u t e d a c o n t r a c t ("the l a b o r b r o k e r a g r e e m e n t " ) w i t h S o u t h e r n Company S e r v i c e s , I n c . ("SCS"), t o p r o v i d e p e r s o n n e l , i n c l u d i n g L e w i s , to work a t an APCo steam stated plant ("the p l a n t " ) . agent. L e w i s s i g n e d a document t i t l e d " P r o j e c t S e c u r i t y R u l e s Lewis direction, [Fluor]." agreed control, that was operating labor agreement which SCS The broker f o r Labor B r o k e r Employees" that specifically as APCo's ("the p r o j e c t - r u l e s d o c u m e n t " ) , i n h i s "work will and t h e s u p e r v i s i o n be subject of both to the [SCS] a n d SCS a n d APCo a r e b o t h s u b s i d i a r i e s o f The S o u t h e r n Company, a n d SCS s i m p l y a c t s as a " s e r v i c e company" f o r o t h e r Southern Company s u b s i d i a r i e s , l i k e practical purposes, Lewis APCo i n t h i s case. For was e m p l o y e d b y APCo t h r o u g h i t s a g e n t SCS. Lewis understood SCS a n d APCo t o be synonymous. testified: "Q. [By c o u n s e l f o r APCo:] D u r i n g a l l t h i s , [ i . e . , o r i e n t a t i o n a t t h e p l a n t , ] was i t Mr. S t o k e s [ , a 22 He 2100815 F l u o r employee,] t r a i n i n g you? that was doing this f o r you, "A. No. "Q. Who "A. ... I d o n ' t remember what h i s name was. "Q. Was "A. No, he was a F l u o r D a n i e l s was i t ? he an [APCo] guy? "Q. D i d you see know who t h a t i s ? "A. man. now you know what [SCS] i s , you [APCo]. "Q. [SCS] a n d you? [APCo] mean one i n t h e same t h i n g t o "A. To me "Q. E x c u s e me? "A. To me "Q. D i d you see any [APCo] o r [SCS] p e o p l e there during t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n part? "A. No." The they are, yes. main they're opinion time of h i s d e p o s i t i o n the was same t h i n g ' t h e same. concludes that Lewis's out belief at the t h a t SCS and APCo "'mean[t] one t o h i m does n o t mean t h a t he h a d t h a t [and] same b e l i e f d u r i n g t h e t i m e he w o r k e d on t h e p r o j e c t a t t h e p l a n t . " So. 3d a t . However, L e w i s made t h e above 23 statements 2100815 in the context of d i s c u s s i n g thus, I do regarding not agree his orientation with h i s testimony. G.UB.MK C o n s t r u c t o r s v. t h e main As our Garner, opinion's supreme 44 at the p l a n t ; So. conclusion court 3d 479, noted in 488 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , i n c a s e s s u c h as t h i s one, " [ a ] l w a y s , t h e f o c u s i s on what t h e employee alleged special intended i n providing employer." When he was services injured, f o r the Lewis had b e e n w o r k i n g a t t h e p l a n t , p e r f o r m i n g work f o r APCo, f o r a b o u t t h r e e months. plant. agreed That i s , L e w i s went t o work d a i l y a t APCo's L e w i s s i g n e d t h e p r o j e c t - r u l e s document, i n w h i c h he t o work supervision of "subject ... to the d i r e c t i o n , [SCS]," and he control, equated SCS with Thus, I b e l i e v e L e w i s c o n s e n t e d t o employment w i t h Moreover, as the main opinion APCo's claim to be APCo. APCo insurance covering Lewis by p a y i n g f o r t h e c o s t o f t h a t i n s u r a n c e . bolsters APCo. acknowledges, i n d i r e c t l y p r o v i d e d workers' compensation strongly and t h e a This special factor employer b e c a u s e , " ' i f t h e s p e c i a l e m p l o y e r d o c t r i n e does n o t a p p l y [ t o an e n t i t y t h a t has p r o v i d e d and p a i d f o r w o r k e r s ' compensation i n s u r a n c e ] , t h e employee i s e f f e c t i v e l y s u i n g t h e e n t i t y provided his workers' compensation 24 insurance, which that is 2100815 contrary t o the compensation further reasons f o r and statute.'" that provisions Garner, "[t]his 44 So. of the 3d consideration workers' a t 489 (stating is particularly important"). The r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t L e w i s c o n s e n t e d t o employment with APCo and Furthermore, plant has an testified supervise like that the he SCS performed APCo's work construction that APCo had manager the who right d e t a i l s o f t h e work done by Lewis, at the p l a n t . established that Accordingly, i t was a at the works plant. the control to at and Fluor employees, I believe employer special t h a t APCo under the s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d i n T e r r y v. R e a d S t e e l P r o d u c t s , 430 2d 862, 865 ( A l a . 1983) employee relationship contract for hire, the work employer; (stating that exists express being or done special employee implied, with employer; the s p e c i a l employer control the d e t a i l s of the work). Because i t i s immune f r o m t o r t e x c l u s i v e - r e m e d y p r o v i s i o n s f o u n d i n §§ 25 employer- has made the special i s e s s e n t i a l l y that special s p e c i a l employer, and i f the a has So. of a the the r i g h t to APCo i s L e w i s ' s liability under the 25-5-52 and -53, A l a . 2100815 Code 1975. Therefore, summary j u d g m e n t Pittman, I would affirm the t r i a l i n f a v o r o f APCo on L e w i s ' s t o r t J . , concurs. 26 court's claims.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.