A New York appellate court held there was conflicting evidence as to whether the plaintiff’s employer had the right to exercise control over a construction worker who was performing sheetrock work at the employer’s premises. Accordingly, the... Read More

Utilizing the co-employee “intentional injury” exception to Alabama’s exclusive remedy rule [see Ala. Code § 25-5-11(b)], the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of... Read More

Colorado’s exclusivity rule is sufficiently broad so as to bar an injured employee from recovering damages via the uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist coverage of a co-employee’s auto policy, held the Supreme Court of Colorado. As long... Read More

An Iowa appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that granted summary judgment to five co-employees of a plaintiff who had been sued under the state's special "gross negligence" exception to co-employee immunity. The plaintiff... Read More

In an unusual case involving horseplay, a New York appellate court affirmed a state trial court's decision that had refused to grant summary judgment to a defendant-co-employee who had been sued by a plaintiff/co-worker following that co-worker's... Read More

A borrowed servant may not recover in tort against the "regular" employees of the borrowing employer, held a Georgia appellate court. Accordingly, a state trial court erred when it refused to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant-employee... Read More

An Iowa appellate court, following the “narrow” exception to co-employee immunity established in Thompson v. Bohlken , 312 N.W.2d 501, 505 (Iowa 1981), held that a state trial court was correct when it granted a defendant/co-employee a judgment... Read More

An auto liability insurer need not defend a wrongful death action filed against its insured, a corporation that had temporarily borrowed an employee of a separate, but related corporate entity to drive one of its vehicles. Because the borrowed driver... Read More

The exclusive remedy provision of the Rhode Island Workers’ Compensation Act is so strong, held the state’s Supreme Court, that it shielded a co-employee from tort liability in a dangerous incident involving horseplay. The evidence indicated... Read More

A paraprofessional working at a Staten Island school, who sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on a wet floor in the school cafeteria, may not maintain a civil action in negligence against the school custodian engineer and a school custodial assistant... Read More

A Missouri appellate court held an employee could maintain a tort action against a co-employee who was allegedly negligent in the operation of the employer’s forklift; the exclusive remedy provisions of the state’s workers’ compensation... Read More

Applying New York’s rule regarding co-employee immunity—that in order for a co-employee to be shielded from liability, the co-employee must (a) have been acting within the scope of his or her employment and (b) not have been engaged in a willful... Read More

The defendant employee’s employment ended when he entered his car, drove away from an employer-controlled parking lot, and struck a co-employee who had entered a cross-walk on a street that circled the employer’s campus. Accordingly, it was... Read More

An appellate court in Washington state held that it was error for a trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of a defendant, on exclusive remedy grounds, where the plaintiff alleged he was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant, a fellow employee... Read More

Adopting the dominant rule discussed in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law , Ch. 111, § 111.03, the Supreme Court of Washington held that a co-employee enjoys immunity under the exclusive remedy provisions of the state’s workers’... Read More