J.C. Hudson, Jr., et al. v. Renosol Seating, LLC, et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/17/2011 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, 2010-2011 2090878 J.C. Hudson, J r . , e t a l . v. Renosol S e a t i n g , LLC, e t a l . Appeal from D a l l a s C i r c u i t (CV-08-900180) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . This appeal concerns whether a p o r t i o n o f t h e Alabama W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t , A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5-1 e t s e q . ("the Act") namely, t h e s o - c a l l e d " e x c l u s i v i t y p r o v i s i o n s " of t h e A c t appearing a t A l a . Code 1975, §§ 25-5-52 a n d 25-5-53 2090878 bars c e r t a i n number of claims i n tort people ("the t h a t have b e e n a s s e r t e d by workers") who 1 allegedly performed l a b o r a t a f a c t o r y i n D a l l a s C o u n t y t h a t p r o d u c e s "foam for automobile Because tort backs, cushions and/or shapes headrests." we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e x c l u s i v i t y p r o v i s i o n s b a r t h o s e claims, Court, we affirm made f i n a l d i s m i s s i n g the The Court seat a pursuant to Rule of the D a l l a s Circuit 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. Civ. P., claims. workers initiated i n December corporate the judgment entities, 2008, t h i s a c t i o n i n the D a l l a s naming including as defendants Circuit certain S e a t i n g LLC; Renosol (a) Renosol S e a t i n g P r o p e r t i e s , LLC; R e n o s o l C o r p o r a t i o n ; L e a r O p e r a t i o n s Corporation; corporate D a v i d Ash, and Lear defendants"); Pete B e r n i e r , Corporation (b) (c) defendants various pursuant ("the fictitiously to individuals, Connie Messer, Brown, and R o b e r t S t r i c k l a n d and certain (collectively, Rule "the including Wayne S a v a g e , R i c k y co-employee d e f e n d a n t s " ) ; named 9(h), parties Ala. R. listed Civ. P. as The c o m p l a i n t c o n t a i n e d f i v e c o u n t s : a c o u n t s e e k i n g damages b a s e d A t the time t h a t the D a l l a s C i r c u i t Court entered i t s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e w o r k e r s ' t o r t c l a i m s i n J u l y 2009, 90 w o r k e r s h a d a p p e a r e d as p l a i n t i f f s . 1 2 2090878 upon a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t a l l t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a d willfully, "intentionally, n e g l i g e n t l y and/or w a n t o n l y caused or a l l o w e d the [ w o r k e r s ] t o be s u b j e c t e d a n d / o r exposed to hazardous h a r m f u l c h e m i c a l s , s u b s t a n c e s and/or c o n d i t i o n s " count s e e k i n g damages b a s e d defendants had upon "intentionally allegations and/or and/or (count I ) ; a that willfully a l l the failed to p r o v i d e a n d / o r m a i n t a i n a s a f e work p l a c e f o r t h e [ w o r k e r s ] " ( c o u n t I I ) ; a c o u n t s e e k i n g damages o n l y f r o m t h e c o - e m p l o y e e d e f e n d a n t s p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 2 5 - 5 - 1 1 ( c ) , a p o r t i o n of the A c t allegations (count I I I ) ; that a l l a count the s e e k i n g damages b a s e d defendants had upon fraudulently m i s r e p r e s e n t e d o r s u p p r e s s e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s as t o c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e f a c t o r y where t h e w o r k e r s IV); and a claim award of w o r k e r s ' (count V ) . s e e k i n g from compensation had p e r f o r m e d the labor (count corporate defendants an b e n e f i t s pursuant to the Act A l t h o u g h t h e c o m p l a i n t has b e e n amended on several o c c a s i o n s t o add p a r t i e s , t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e f i v e c o u n t s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t has remained t h e same s i n c e t h e i n i t i a t i o n 3 of 2090878 t h e a c t i o n ; f u r t h e r , e a c h amended c o m p l a i n t has trial. 2 After defendants the sought a j u r y Act claims the o r i g i n a l complaint was filed, the co-employee f i l e d an a n s w e r a v e r r i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t provided against the workers' them. e x c l u s i v e remedy A l l the corporate as to defendants the filed answers to count V of the c o m p l a i n t and moved t o d i s m i s s the other ( i . e . , counts and IV), counts t h a t a p p l i e d t o them specifically i n v o k i n g the basis for dismissal. counsel exclusivity I, I I , p r o v i s i o n s as In responding to the motions to d i s m i s s , f o r the workers e x p r e s s l y conceded t h a t count I I due t o be d i s m i s s e d as t o t h e c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t s the d i s m i s s a l of counts I and IV. A f t e r a h e a r i n g , the a p p l i e d to the c o r p o r a t e defendants. moved for the entry of a d i s m i s s a l order. Before the t r i a l on the the motion, existence The c o r p o r a t e final 4 trial they defendants as to that c o u r t c o u l d hear arguments of bankruptcy The c o r p o r a t e defendants a s s e r t c o u r t t h a t counsel f o r the workers actions i n three counties containing o t h e r c o r p o r a t e e n t i t i e s ; however, the that matter. 2 judgment was but opposed c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g c o u n t s I , I I , and IV as then a proceedings i n t h e i r b r i e f to t h i s has f i l e d f o u r o t h e r similar claims against r e c o r d i s s i l e n t as t o 2090878 involving some applicability of the corporate defendants of the automatic-stay § 362) was s u g g e s t e d (and o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f 11 U.S.C. on t h e r e c o r d ; t h a t s t a y was l i f t e d as o f November 10, 2009, a n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t on t h a t d a t e e x p r e s s l y directed judgment the entry of a d i s m i s s a l order, pursuant final t o Rule as t o i t s e a r l i e r 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. On December 9, 2009, c o u n s e l f o r t h e w o r k e r s t i m e l y f i l e d a motion, final pursuant judgment t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., t o v a c a t e t h e as to corporate defendants; that the claims the dismissed provisions remaining in case were factually c l a i m s so as t o r e q u i r e t h a t of the A c t d i d not apply 19, 2010, t h e d a t e consent set the to bar the t o r t defendants. n o t e x p r e s s l y r u l e on t h e w o r k e r s ' March the t o g e t h e r t o a judgment and t h a t t h e e x c l u s i v i t y asserted against the corporate did against t h e w o r k e r s a v e r r e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , intertwined with the dismissed they proceed counts specified The t r i a l claims court postjudgment motion by by t h e p a r t i e s i n their t o e x t e n d t h e 90-day d e a d l i n e t o r u l e on t h e m o t i o n as f o r t h i n R u l e 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P.; t h u s , t h a t m o t i o n was denied on t h a t d a t e . The w o r k e r s 5 t i m e l y appealed from t h e 2090878 November this 10, 2009, judgment; the a p p e a l was c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, We first appellate court's consider jurisdiction R u l e 54(b) to i t s d i s m i s s a l whether as we § may transferred 12-2-7(6). properly exercise t o t h e a p p e a l b a s e d upon t h e d i r e c t i o n of e n t r y to of a f i n a l trial judgment as order. " ' I f a t r i a l c o u r t c e r t i f i e s a j u d g m e n t as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , an a p p e a l w i l l g e n e r a l l y l i e from t h a t judgment.' The e x c e p t i o n t o t h a t r u l e i s that [an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] w i l l not consider an a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t c e r t i f i e d as f i n a l u n d e r R u l e 54(b) i f i t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e r e i s 'no j u s t reason f o r delay.' T h i s C o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t exceeds i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s a r e a when t h e c l a i m o r c l a i m s t h a t r e m a i n p e n d i n g i n the trial court present issues that are ' i n t e r t w i n e d ' w i t h the i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n the c l a i m c e r t i f i e d as f i n a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) . " S m i t h v. S l a c k A l o s t Dev. Servs. 556, 562 ( A l a . 2009) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d and e m p h a s i s r e m o v e d ) . The workers a s s a i l the trial o f A l a b a m a , LLC, court's 32 So. d e c i s i o n to 2d direct t h e e n t r y o f a f i n a l j u d g m e n t on t h e b a s i s t h a t , t h e y c o n t e n d , the with t o r t claims the claims t h a t the t r i a l immediate dismissed that the trial remain pending. c o u r t has appellate by court are intertwined However, we conclude acted w i t h i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n to review of 6 i t s dismissal order. allow The 2090878 dismissal of defendants a l l the are named, defendants that effectively excises damages from tort do counts i.e., not a l l the seek the as which claims benefits issues action the in of i t the corporate against under the c o m p e n s a t o r y and relates to those Act, punitive the corporate defendants, l e a v i n g the workers to t h e i r compensation remedies under A r t i c l e 3 of the A c t c u l p a b i l i t y of the Further, the jury participation greatly e m p l o y e r , see d i s m i s s a l of t h a t the c o r p o r a t e available (which are not A l a . Code 1975, those claims d e f e n d a n t s w i l l be docket before a the scope of the issues b e t w e e n t h e w o r k e r s and t h e c o r p o r a t e counsel real of has prospect required to wait judgment any § 25-5-51). negates the i n t h e a c t i o n can be e n t e r e d , narrows counterclaim d e p e n d e n t upon for concluding an their and the dismissal to be litigated defendants. Further, no been a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the w o r k e r s t h a t would i n f a v o r o f s i m u l t a n e o u s a d j u d i c a t i o n , and t h e r e i s no likelihood this court consideration required. t h a t the so of the as trial to same court w i l l engender issue a a ignore the possibility second time See L i g h t i n g F a i r , I n c . v. R o s e n b e r g , [Ms. November 24, 2010] So. 3d , 7 mandate ( A l a . 2010) will that be 1091077, (citing 2090878 federal cases determining judgment indicating the p r o p r i e t y of d i r e c t i n g pursuant t o Rule workers' i n v i t a t i o n count now turn I V were 54(b)). o f such We thus the sole defendants dismissal order final decline court's the direction judgment as t o i t s d i s m i s s a l o r d e r . to the merits corporate factors i n the entry of a to set aside the t r i a l of the e n t r y of a f i n a l We the importance Count I and counts tort of the appeal. against as o f t h e d a t e as t o which c o u n s e l asserted of the t r i a l the court's f o r the workers had not conceded the p r o p r i e t y o f d i s m i s s a l i n the t r i a l court. Both 3 counts i n c o r p o r a t e d c e r t a i n f a c t u a l averments o f t h e complaint by reference, and/or were fictitious i n c l u d i n g an a v e r m e n t employed by the p a r t y defendants" that [corporate the workers "are defendants] at a factory i n Dallas and/or County. Count I a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t e defendants, t h e co-employee defendants, defendants "and/or" the f i c t i t i o u s l y named had " i n t e n t i o n a l l y , w i l l f u l l y , n e g l i g e n t l y and/or wantonly caused We n o t e , i n p a s s i n g , t h a t t h e w o r k e r s ' f o u r t h amended complaint was " s i m p l y too l a t e " to the extent that i t attempted t o r e a s s e r t counts I , I I , and IV a g a i n s t t h e c o r p o r a t e defendants a f t e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t had d i r e c t e d the e n t r y o f a f i n a l judgment as t o t h e d i s m i s s a l o f those c o u n t s . F r i d d l e v . Raymond, 575 So. 2d 1038, 1040 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . 3 8 2090878 or a l l o w e d the [workers] hazardous and/or conditions." the t o be s u b j e c t e d a n d / o r harmful chemicals, exposed substances to and/or Count IV a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t s , co-employee d e f e n d a n t s , "and/or" the f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s h a d f r a u d u l e n t l y made c e r t a i n m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o r had suppressed certain safety of the factory thrust of counts employee touching and therein. I and IV, then, i s t o a l l e g e and/or whether the workers' that The the co- "employer" or t h e y be t h e c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t s , t h e co-employee d e f e n d a n t s , o r t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y concerning the and t h e c h e m i c a l s used defendants "employers" facts named d e f e n d a n t s a c t e d i n s u c h a way as t o c a u s e t h e w o r k e r s v a r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r i e s , i n c l u d i n g " i n j u r i e s t o t h e i r h e a d [ s ] , eyes, n o s e [ s ] , respiratory systems, chest[s] and/or ... an i n c r e a s e r i s k and/or l i k e l i h o o d o f o t h e r a d v e r s e c o n d i t i o n s , " as w e l l as i n c i d e n t a l a n d c o n s e q u e n t i a l damage. i n the The w o r k e r s ' u s e o f a l t e r n a t i v e p l e a d i n g l a n g u a g e i n t h e i r c o m p l a i n t t h u s assumes that they w i l l the and be a b l e t o p r o v e t h a t one o r more members o f c l a s s of defendants that includes the corporate defendants the f i c t i t i o u s l y employers as opposed named defendants (i.e., the workers' t o t h e co-employee defendants) 9 breached 2090878 d u t i e s owed t o t h e w o r k e r s i n t h e c o u r s e of the workers' l a b o r at the f a c t o r y . Article involving statute that 3 of smaller (see the Act, employing subject to entities g e n e r a l l y A l a . Code 1975, "compensation ... be p a i d by the certain that are exceptions exempted § 25-5-50), employer ... by mandates in every case of p e r s o n a l i n j u r y or d e a t h of h i s or her employee caused by an a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t o f and employment, w i t h o u t Ala. of Code 1975, the Act, regard § 25-5-51. disablement to any i n the course question of of h i s or her negligence." S i m i l a r l y , pursuant to A r t i c l e and death of employees 4 from o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e s a r e t r e a t e d by t h e A c t as stemming f r o m accidental injuries Code 1975, § and 25-5-111. are s i m i l a r l y compensable. However, the right to See Ala. compensation a f f o r d e d t o e m p l o y e e s u n d e r t h e A c t i s , by s t a t u t e , e x c l u s i v e . The Act provides: " E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r [ i . e . , t h e A c t ] , no e m p l o y e e o f any e m p l o y e r s u b j e c t t o [ t h e A c t ] , nor the p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , s u r v i v i n g spouse, or n e x t of k i n of the employee s h a l l have a r i g h t t o any o t h e r method, f o r m , o r amount o f c o m p e n s a t i o n o r damages f o r an i n j u r y o r d e a t h o c c a s i o n e d by an a c c i d e n t o r o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e p r o x i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n g f r o m and w h i l e e n g a g e d i n t h e a c t u a l performance of the d u t i e s of h i s or her 10 2090878 employment a n d f r o m a c a u s e o r i g i n a t i n g employment o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e r e o f . " Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-52. 53, p r o v i d e s , i n such S i m i l a r l y , A l a . Code 1975, § 25-5¬ i n pertinent part: "The r i g h t s a n d r e m e d i e s g r a n t e d i n [ t h e A c t ] t o an employee s h a l l exclude a l l o t h e r r i g h t s and remedies o f t h e employee, h i s or her personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , p a r e n t , dependent, o r next of k i n , a t common l a w , b y s t a t u t e , o r o t h e r w i s e on a c c o u n t of i n j u r y , l o s s of s e r v i c e s , or death. E x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n [ t h e A c t ] , no e m p l o y e r s h a l l be h e l d c i v i l l y l i a b l e f o r personal i n j u r y to or death of the employer's employee, f o r p u r p o s e s o f [ t h e A c t ] , whose i n j u r y o r d e a t h i s due t o an a c c i d e n t o r t o an o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e w h i l e engaged i n t h e s e r v i c e o r business of the employer, t h e cause o f which accident or occupational disease o r i g i n a t e s i n the employment." We those have had the o p p o r t u n i t y to consider exclusivity provisions previously. t h e scope I n B e a r d v. of Mobile P r e s s R e g i s t e r , I n c . , 908 So. 2d 932 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) , we reviewed a judgment i n favor o f an employer i n an action b r o u g h t b y t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f an employee who h a d been murdered by a co-employee who work; i n t h a t a c t i o n , t h e p e r s o n a l to recover liability, damages on a number including failure co-employee, failure had brought a p i s t o l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e had sought of tort-based to supervise to instruct 11 to other theories of or d i s c i p l i n e the employees to report 2090878 threatening failure conduct on the part t o p r o v i d e t h e employee with the t r i a l court that the personal noting that, the co-employee, a safe workplace. representative's employer, of We agreed provisions the e x c l u s i v i t y tort and barred claims against from the s t a n d p o i n t of the the employee, t h e w o r k p l a c e s h o o t i n g d e a t h was n o t i n t e n d e d o r e x p e c t e d and, therefore, 937 Ala. 908 amounted t o an " a c c i d e n t " under ( c i t i n g and q u o t i n g DeArman v. I n g a l l s 205, So. 208-09, 61 So. 2d at 936, we 2d 764, 766-67 acknowledged the A c t . I r o n Works Co., (1952)). that c a s e s , " such as (1) t o "an the t o r t i o u s c o n d u c t , s u c h as i n t e n t i o n a l the exclusivity t u r n Lowman v. P i e d m o n t ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) , and "certain 'intentional f r a u d , "committed bounds o f t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p r o p e r r o l e " ' " A l a b a m a Power Co., 775 So. 2d 783, 786 95 employer's 258 In Beard, p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t had been h e l d n o t t o a p p l y i n limited Id. at beyond ( q u o t i n g Hobbs v. ( A l a . 2000), q u o t i n g i n E x e c . S h i r t M f g . Co., 547 So. 2d 90, (2) t o "an e m p l o y e r ' s w r o n g f u l c o n d u c t [ t h a t ] ... i n j u r e s an e m p l o y e e ' s u n b o r n c h i l d " ( c i t i n g N a m i s l o v. A k z o Chems., I n c . , 620 So. 2d 573, 575 The workers in this case seek to (Ala. 1993)). rely upon the first e x c e p t i o n t o t h e e x c l u s i v i t y p r o v i s i o n s t h a t we i d e n t i f i e d i n 12 2090878 Beard that ... as h a v i n g b e e n carved exception pertaining "committed role."'" beyond to "'intentional t h e bounds principle "intentional espoused by referred classify their tort claims, exception" They further to the extent exclusivity provisions proper tortious conduct provision[s]" are of the Act, this that not court decision, been of urge that to the cases that we this court to the workers have o u t s i d e t h e scope o f has p r e v i o u s l y "claims a l l e g i n g barred Hiatt significantly by the v. S t a n d a r d 741 So. 2d 407, 412 ( A l a . C i v . has to refer of the A c t . and a l t h o u g h Lowman f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n Lowman line i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c t , as f a l l i n g However, Co., conduct of the employer's t h e Lowman t o i n Beard. the tortious The w o r k e r s ' b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t u s e s t h e s h o r t h a n d expression alleged o u t b y Lowman a n d i t s p r o g e n y : cited intentional exclusivity Furniture Mfg. App. 1 9 9 8 ) , t h e s c o p e o f circumscribed by a later Ex p a r t e P r o g r e s s R a i l S e r v s . C o r p . , 869 So. 2d 459 (Ala. 2003). Because t h e a p p e l l a n t i n Beard had argued P r o g r e s s R a i l was d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , we b r i e f l y s u m m a r i z e d t h e h o l d i n g of Progress R a i l i n our opinion: an "In [ P r o g r e s s R a i l ] , t h e widower and c h i l d r e n o f e m p l o y e e o f a s c r a p - m e t a l company who was k i l l e d 13 that 2090878 i n a workplace explosion brought a c i v i l action a g a i n s t the employer and o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s , s e e k i n g damages f r o m t h a t e m p l o y e r b a s e d upon a l l e g a t i o n s o f an i n t e n t i o n a l a n d / o r a w i l l f u l v i o l a t i o n o f a d u t y to p r o v i d e the employee w i t h a s a f e p l a c e t o work and an i n t e n t i o n a l and w i l l f u l f a i l u r e t o h i r e , t r a i n , and/or s u p e r v i s e the employee's coworkers. The d e f e n d a n t e m p l o y e r i n P r o g r e s s R a i l moved t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t on t h e b a s i s o f t h e A c t ' s exclusive-remedy provisions; however, the trial c o u r t d e n i e d the employer's motion to d i s m i s s the complaint. The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e e m p l o y e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus and i s s u e d a w r i t d i r e c t i n g the t r i a l court to d i s m i s s the e m p l o y e r as a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , d e t e r m i n i n g that the A c t b a r r e d the t o r t a c t i o n n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the a l l e g a t i o n s o f w i l l f u l and i n t e n t i o n a l c o n d u c t . " 908 So. 2d a t 936. Because the a p p e l l a n t i n Beard more upon t h e i s s u e o f t h e a c c i d e n t a l n a t u r e o f t h e d e a t h i n t h a t c a s e , i t was the precise extent to which Progress the p a r t i e s and a m i c i c u r i a e who the corporate defendants' p o s i t i o n Progress Rail, Rail we have p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t when an e m p l o y e e ' s the scope affects the However, b o t h have f i l e d b r i e f s s u p p o r t i n g have a r g u e d a d d r e s s t h a t q u e s t i o n as as employee's unnecessary i n Beard to determine c o n t i n u i n g v i a b i l i t y o f Lowman and i t s p r o g e n y . l e n g t h , and we w i l l focused noted, the p o i n t at well. stands for the claim i s otherwise within of the A c t , the e x c l u s i v i t y provisions cannot be a v o i d e d by t h e mere e x p e d i e n t o f a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e c o n d u c t o f 14 2090878 the employer giving rise to the claim was intentional. In recognizing that p r i n c i p l e , Progress distinguished Rail involving defraud, against allow an employee's claims and i n t e n t i o n a l her employer the injured employee off-the-job to that injury.'" was d e s c r i b e d as fraud, injury" workers' to distress to compensation and a t t e m p t i n g t o c o e r c e her d i s a b i l i t y Progress conspiracy o u t o f ... r e f u s i n g t o seek or the opinion i n of emotional "[arose] employee "'file of infliction b e n e f i t s f o r her on-the-job that Lowman, w h i c h willful Rail, ( q u o t i n g Lowman, 547 So. 2d a t 9 2 ) . claim 869 as f o r an So. 2d at 469 P r o g r e s s R a i l makes c l e a r t h a t , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e h o l d i n g i n Lowman t h a t t h e e x c l u s i v i t y provisions not apply conduct tortious do . .. employer's proper arising from employer's Progress committed role,'" "conduct proper to claims they t h e bounds of the do a p p l y to bar tort claims t h e bounds of the within 869 So. 2d a t 470 (emphasis i n Rail). Progress Rail, then, compels objective nature of the p a r t i c u l a r giving "'intentional beyond committed role." alleging rise to the injury, judicial attention t r a n s a c t i o n or occurrence and i t d i s c o u n t s 15 to the the e f f e c t of 2090878 s u b j e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of the employer's s t a t e o f mind. Supp. A c c o r d H a r r i s v . B e a u l i e u Group, 2 d 1348, 1356 (M.D. A l a . 2005) injury i s c o v e r e d under employee based L L C , 394 F. ("When t h e e m p l o y e e ' s t h e A c t , t h e A c t does n o t a l l o w t h e t o c i r c u m v e n t i t s p r o v i s i o n s and seek a t o r t on an willful."). injury contemporaneous assertion that t h e employer's remedy conduct was When i t c a n o b j e c t i v e l y be a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t an "aris[es] o u t o f a n d i n t h e c o u r s e o f ... employment" (§ 25-5-50) a n d t h a t t h e i n j u r y i s n o t e x p e c t e d o r i n t e n d e d on the employee's part, pleading o r p r o o f o f an i n t e n t p a r t o f t h e employer t o i n j u r e w i l l the n o t remove t h e c a s e f r o m scope o f t h e A c t and i t s e x c l u s i v i t y p r o v i s i o n s . Moore correctly surmised in h i s treatise compensation law, a f t e r P r o g r e s s R a i l , t h a t A l a b a m a l a w no l o n g e r a l l o w s against employers," "premised on intentional a In their this covered conduct Alabama Workers' at least injury case, a t bottom, injuries stem such caused of t h e employer." Compensation As Judge on workers' " i t s h o u l d be assumed intentional when on t h e fraud a fraud by actions claim i s the w i l l f u l 2 Terry A. or Moore, § 20:18 (West 2010 S u p p . ) . t h e w o r k e r s have a l l e g e d that from conduct, statements, o r s i l e n c e o f 16 2090878 the corporate defendants as to workplace conditions. Such c o n d u c t , even i f p r o v e d , w o u l d f a l l w i t h i n t h e e m p l o y e r ' s r o l e under the A c t : to "employ[] another t o p e r f o r m a s e r v i c e " i n e x c h a n g e f o r wages. in this by A l a . Code 1975, of exposure workplace, not that coercion occurring outside hazardous have the been do we 2d 522 So. injured scope of 2d 916 opinions employment (Ala. 2005), as compelling tort simply recognize the c o u r t and principle Act are was be of Inc., contrary this that 987 court; not a l l a l l e g e d to have exclusivity P r o p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d , t h e g l o s s p l a c e d upon Lowman i t s p r o g e n y by c a s e s t h a t b r o a d l y claims (as practices). a b e e n c o m m i t t e d by an e m p l o y e r w i l l f a l l w i t h i n t h e and of S o t i v. Lowe's Home C t r s . , conduct that could conceivably provisions. the means by in v i e w P a i n t e r v. McWane C a s t I r o n P i p e Co., ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , and fraudulent injuries i n Lowman, i n w h i c h t h e gravamen c o n c l u s i o n t o t h a t r e a c h e d by t h e t r i a l both workers conditions f r a u d c l a i m stemmed f r o m p o s t i n j u r y c o e r c i v e Neither 906 to they a l l e g e d t o have o c c u r r e d So. The case a l l e g e t h a t t h e y have s u f f e r e d b o d i l y virtue the § 25-5-1(4). against best viewed employers f a l l through the 17 state that outside lens the that intentionalscope of Progress the Rail 2090878 p r o v i d e s , and we do n o t h e s i t a t e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e w o r k e r s ' claims against the corporate defendants i n this case fall w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h e A c t and i t s e x c l u s i v i t y p r o v i s i o n s . B a s e d upon t h e f o r e g o i n g f a c t s a n d a u t h o r i t i e s , we the judgment of t h e t r i a l affirm court. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Bryan, concur. 18 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.