NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0272n.06 Nos. 09-5182 & 09- 5183 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
WI L L I AM HARRI S ASHER, et al., Pla int if fs , AT L AS M AT ERIAL

HA ND L I NG , I NC ., a C a l i f or nia Corporation, De fe nd ant/ Th ir d Pa

rt y Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. RACK CONVEYOR I

NSTAL L ATI ON, I

NC., Third Party

Def endant- Appellee , and UNARCO M ATERI AL HANDL I

NG, I NC., a Tenne ssee Corpor ation, I nte rv e nin g Pla int if

f/ De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt,
v. RACK CONVEYOR I

NSTAL L ATI ON, I

NC., Third Party

Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

B EF OR E: KENN ED Y, CO L E, and GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e.Nos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 2 - I n th is d ive rs ity

a cti on , p la int if

fs , w ho are pa st a

nd pr e se nt Wa l- Ma

rt e mpl oy e e s a

nd the ir spouse s , s u e d

d e f e n d a nt U n a r c o M a te rial Ha ndling, Inc. (“ Unar co”) , and its subcontrac tor, defe ndant Atlas Mater ial Handling, I nc. (“ Atlas”), a lleg ing injurie s cause d by exposure to car

bon monox ide g a s in the e nc los e d f

re e zer se c tio n o f a

Wal -M art

Di str ibutio n Ce nte r d

ur ing a tw o- we e k p e ri od

in November

and De cembe r 2005. Ther eaf ter, Atlas f

iled a third-pa

rty complaint for c ommon law indemnity

or appor tionment of liabilit y

ag ainst its subcontractor, Rac k Convey or Installation, I nc. (“RCI ”), a lleg ing that RCI was responsible for the rele ase of the carbon m onox ide. Unar co asse rted
crossc laims for contra ctual and/or common law indemnity

ag ainst Atlas and RCI
. I n this consolidated appea l, Unarc o and Atlas a ppeal the f

ollowing a dverse rul ings by the dis tr ic t c ourt : (1 ) i ts F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 6) dis mis sa l of Un arc o’ s c ro ssc la ims
a g a ins t RCI , b a se d u

po n it s hold ing that RCI is not Un arc o’ s “c op art y” un de r F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Pr oc e dure 13 (g ), and (2 ) its sum mary jud g me nt dis mis sa l of Atl a s’ s thir d- pa rt y c omp la int

a g a ins t RCI , s t em m i n g from it s holding that RCI ’s employ ees w ere Atlas’s “loa ned ser vants” unde r Kentucky law. We hold that Unar co’s appea l is, pursuant to its stipulation, m oot beca use the a ppeal
wa s c on tin g e nt up on our re ve rs a l of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s statut e of lim itatio ns dis mis sa l of the c la ims of ce rtain untimely

plaintiffs in relate d case no. 09-5158, and we rece ntly aff irmed that ruling
. See Asher v. U

narco Material Handling, Inc. , 5 96 F .3 d 3 13 (6 th C ir . 2 01 0) . Re g ard ingAt la s’ s a pp e a l,
we ho ld that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in ru lin g that RCI ’s e mpl oy e e s w e re At la s’ s “ loa ne d s e rv a nts ”
a s a matt e r of law, and we the re fo re re ve rs e the dis tr ic t cou rt ’s g ra nt of su mma

ry jud g me nt to RC I and re mand for f

urther pr ocee dings.Nos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 3 - I. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a c c ur a te ly

se t f or th t he re le va nt b a c kg ro un d: The Plai ntiffs initially

filed this action in L aure l Circuit Court on November 21, 20 06 , c la imi ngdama g e s a s th e re su lt o f a n a lle g e d d isc ha

rg e of c arb on mon oxide in the fre ezer sec tion of the Wal-Mart Distribution Center in L ondon, Kentucky (“ Di str ibutio n Ce nte r” ). Ac c or din g to the Pla int if fs , D e fe nd ants Un arc o a

nd [Atl a s] cau s e d th e d is c h ar g e in th e c o u r s e o f r e p a ir in g an d in s ta ll in g r a c k s y stems and equipment. The D efe ndants join t l y remove d the ac tion to thi s Court on Dec ember

18, 2006, on the basis of diver sity jurisdiction. Subsequently , on Fe bruar y 16, 2007, Atlas filed a m o t i on for lea ve to file a Third-Party

Complaint aga inst RCI , claiming that RCI actua lly perf ormed the r epair s and install ati on at the Distribution Center on beha lf of Atlas. The Court gr anted Atlas’ motion, and the Third- Party Complaint was filed in the re cord on F ebrua ry 23, 2007. There afte r, on J uly 17, 2007, the Court also g rante d the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an Ame nded Complaint. On J uly 27, 2007, Unar co filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint and asse rted c ro ssc la ims a g a ins t D e fe nd ant A tla s and Th ir d- Part

y De fe nd ant R CI . U na

rc o c la ims that RCI actua lly perf

ormed the rac k installation wor k in the Distribution Center , and that A tla s and

RCI a c te d n e gli g e ntl y

in f a ili ngto r e po rt

or re me dy the a lle g e dly de fe c tiv e g e ne rator s u se d to pe rf or m th e wo rk
. Ac c or din g ly , Un arc o c la ims that it is entitled to contractua l and/or common law indemnity from Atlas and RCIfor the Plaintiffs’ claims ag ainst Unarc o. Th e re a ft e r, on Se pte mbe r 14 , 20 07 , RCI mov e d to dis mis s Un arco’ s cr os sc la im ag ainst it under Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (6). In support of its motion, RCI a sse rt s th at “[ a ]n or ig ina l de fe nd ant c an n ot b ri nga c ro ssc la im a g a ins t a third-par ty defe ndant it did not join[ .]” More spec ifically , RCI asser ts that it i s not a “ c o- pa rt y ” of Un arc o und e r Rule 13 (g ). I n r e sp on se , U na rc o c on te nd s th a t th e re is conflicting authority

reg ardingthe def

inition of a co-pa

rty
. . . . (Interna l citations omit ted; second a lteration in orig inal.) Finding no g uidance from our court, which “has not a ddresse d whether an orig inal defe ndantNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

Rul e 13 (g ) p ro vid e s: 1 (g) Cr ossclaim Against a Coparty. A p le a din g may state a s a c ro ssc la im a

ny c la im by one par ty ag ainst a copa

rty if the cla im arises out of

the transa ction or occ urre nce that is the su

bje c t matte r o f t

he or ig ina l acti on

or of a c ounte rc la im, or

if the c la im relates to a

ny proper

ty that is the subject matter of the orig inal ac t i o n . The crossc laim ma

y include a claim that the copar ty is or may b e l i ab l e t o the cross-c laimant for a ll or part of a cl ai m asser

ted in the ac tion ag ainst the cross-c laimant. Rul e 14 pr ov ide s, in r e le va nt p art : (a) When a Defendin g P arty M ay Bring in a Thi rd P arty. (1) Ti ming of the Summ ons and

Compla int . A def

ending party m ay , as third-par ty plaintiff, serve a sum mons and complaint on a nonpa rty who is or may be lia

ble to i t f or a ll o r p art

of the c la im a g a ins t it . B ut t he thi rd -p art

y pla int if f m us t, b y mot ion , o bta in t

he c ourt ’s lea ve if it fil e s th e thi rd -p art y complaint more than 14 da y s after servingits original a

nswer. - 4 - can file a cross-claim aga inst a third-party defe ndant under

Rule 13(g ) or Rule 14(a )” of the F eder al 1 Rules of Civil P roce dure, a nd survey ing c onflicting authority

on the issue, the district cour t found p er s u as i v e t h e a u t h o ri t i es h o l d i n g t h at “a no ri gi n al d ef end an ti s l i m i t edb y

t h e l an gu age o f Ru l e 1 3 (g) and ca n only bring crossc laims ag ainst co-pa rties.” “Co-par

ties,” acc ording to the district c ourt, are those sharing “like st atus[.] ” (I nterna l quotation marks omitted.) The district cour t concluded that

“ Un arc o a nd RCI do no t sh are ‘l ike status ,’ a s RCI ha s n ot b e e n s ue d b y

the Pla int if

fs and is m e re ly a third-pa rty defe ndant to the ac tion, while Unarc o is an orig i n al d efe ndant and a co-pa rty of Th ir d- Part

y Pla int if f A tla s. ” Th e refo re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt dis mis se d U na

rc o’ s c ro ssc la ims a g a ins t RCI for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be g rante d under Rule 12(b)( 6) of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Proce dure, but it clar ified that the dismiss al was without pr ejudice to permit Unarc oNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 5 - to re-f ile its crossclaims ag ainst RCI in a sepa rate action for

indemnity
. There afte r, the district cour t entere d the s econd order that is the subject of this consolidated appea l. That order

g rante d RCI ’s motion for summary judgme nt ag ainst Atlas and denied Atlas’s cross-motion for pa

rtial summary

judgme nt ag ainst RCI , there by di s m i s s i n g Atlas’s cla ims for
c omm on law i nd e mni ty

or a pp or tio nm ent of li a

bil ity a g a ins t RCI . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ru le d th a t,
a l t h o u g h R C I’ s e mp l o ye e s p e r f o r m e d t h e r a c k r e p a i r w o r k w h i c h l e d

t o t h e r e l e a s e o f t h e i n

j u rycausingcar

bon monox ide at the Distribution Center, RCIwas not liable to Atlas under Kentucky

law beca use “A tlas retaine d the rig ht to control the work done at the location i n i s s u e” and “RCI ’s employ ees a cted a s loaned ser vants to Atlas[.] ” In so holding, the distri ct co u rt reje cted Atlas’ s arguments that (1) disputed issues of mate rial fa ct pre cluded summary judgme nt in RCI ’s favor, and (2) RCIperf

ormed the w ork at the D istribution C enter as an inde pendent c ontrac tor. Approxim ately

two wee ks later, the district co u rt g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of Unar co and A tlas ag ains t ce rt ain plaintiffs (the “ untimely plaintiffs”) w hose cla ims it held wer e barr ed by the applicable s tatute of limit ations. Subsequently , Unar co and A tlas rea ched se ttlement
a g re e me nts wi th t

he re ma ini ng , t im ely pla int if fs , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt

dis mis se d th e tim e ly plaintiffs’ cla ims with prejudice pursuant to the parties’ J anuar y 2009 stipulations of dism issal. The untimely plaintiffs unsucce ssfully

appea led the dis trict court’s dismi ssal of t heir claims to this court in relate d case no. 09-5158. See Asher v. U narco Material Handling, Inc. , 596 F.3d 313 ( 6th Cir. 2010). Un arc o ti me ly

a pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s Rul e 12 (b )( 6) dis mis sa l of its c ro ssc la ims a g a ins tNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

Th e c on so lid a te d a

pp e a ls a re br ou g ht p ur su ant t o Ru le 54 (b ) of the F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l 2 Procedur e. - 6 - RCI , b ut i t st ipu la te d d

ur ing br ie fi ng and a t or a l argume nt that its pr e se nt a pp e a l sh ou ld p ro c e e d o nly if we r ever sed the district cour t’s dismiss al of the untimely plai ntiffs’ cla ims in case no. 09-5158. Atlas timely appea ls the district c ourt’s summary judgme nt dismissal of its third-pa rty compl aint
a g a i n s tR C I. 2 II. Unar co ar g ues t hat t he district cour t erre d in dismi ssing its crossc laims ag ainst RCI . I n the
a lte rn a tiv e , U na

rc o a sse rt s th a t, “ e ve n if

[its] p le a din g a g a ins t RCI did no t qua lif y a s a c ro ss- c la im pursuant to Rule 13(g ), the prope r re medy was for the District Court to rec lassify [t he] ple ading as a counte rcla im rather tha

n dismiss ing it for

failure to state a c laim, the harshe st of all reme dies.” We h old that U na rc o’ s a pp e a l is moo t. U na

rc o st ip ulate d th a t it s p re se nt a pp e a l sh ou ld pr oc e e d o nly

if we re ve rs e d th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of the un tim e ly pla int if fs ’ c la ims in c a se no. 09-5158. B eca

use we rec ently

aff irmed the district cour

t’s ruling in that case , see 596 F.3d 313, we do not conside r the issue ra ised by Unar co in the pre sent appe al. III
. A t l a s ar g u e s t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt e r r e d i ng r an t i n g s u m m ar y j u d g m e n ti nf

a v o r o f R C I, Atlas’s subcontra ctor, on Atlas’s third-par ty claim for common law indemnity or appor tionment of liability ag ainst RCI . The district c ourt held that RCI ’s worke rs, who per formed the work c ausing the re lease of ca

rbon monox ide at the Distribution Center, were “loane d serva nts” under A tlas’sNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 7 - control and, the ref

ore, RCIwas not liable to A tlas for their a lleg ed neg lige nce. A tlas contends that the dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in ru lin g that RCI ’s wo rk e rs we re , as a ma tte r o f l aw, At la s’ s lo ane d s e rv a nts
. A. We r eview de novo a district cour t’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt. Lon ga be rg e r Co . v . Ko lt , 586 F.3d 459, 465 ( 6th Cir. 2009). Summary judgme nt is proper “if the pleading s, the discover y and disclosure mate rials on file, a nd any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of l aw.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c)( 2). The
mov ingpa

rt y ha s th e burd e n o f p ro vin g the a bs e nc e of genui ne iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t and its entitlement to judgment a s a matter of law. Ce lot e

xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 32 3 (1 9 8 6 ). When de termining whether the movant has met this burde n, we must view the evidenc e in the lig ht most favora

ble to the nonmoving pa

rty
. Smith W

holesale Co., I

nc. v. R.J. Rey nolds Tobacco Co. , 477 F.3d 854, 861 ( 6th Cir. 2007). B. Under Kentucky

law,
a se rv ant m ay be loa

ne d o r h ir e d b y

his ma ste r f

or so me sp e c ia l pu

rp os e so a s to become , as t o that service , the s erva nt of t he party to whom he is loaned or hired, a nd this is t rue e ven thoug h the serva nt is selected, paid, and may be discha

rg ed by the orig inal employ er. Bowen v. Gradison Constr. Co. , 32 S. W .2d 1014, 1016 (Ky . 1930). In contra st to a “loane d
serva nt,” [a] n “indepe ndent contra ctor” is o n e wh o is doing his own wor k in his own way . . . that is, he must have some pa rticular ta sk he has a ri gh t t o co m p lete and a n ob lig a tion to c omp le te , a nd he mus t be su

bje c t to no c on tr ol i n th e de ta ils of itsNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 8 - doing. Id . at 1017. I n deter mining whether a worke r is a loaned serva nt/employ ee or an indepe ndent contra ctor, [i ]t is imposs ible to lay d o wn a rule by which the status of me n working and contra cting toge ther c an b e d ef i n i tely define d in all case s as employ ees or independe nt contrac tors. Eac h case must de pend on its own fac ts, a nd ordinarily

no one fe a tu r e o f th e r e lati o nis d e te r

mi n a ti v e , b u t a ll mu s t b e c o n s id e r e d to g ether
. Ordinar ily

the question is one of fac t. The principal consideration in determining the qu es t i o ni s t h e r i gh tt o co n t r o l t h e m an n er o f d o i n g t h e w o rk
. Ge n er al l y s p ea k i n g, it m ay be state d th a t, if th e e mpl oy e e is und e r t he c on tr ol o f t

he e mpl oy e r, he is a serva nt or employ ee a

nd not an independe nt contra ctor, but, if in the per formanc e of the work he is not under the control of the employ er, he is an independe nt contrac tor. Howeve r, it is not the actual exerc ise of the rig ht by interfe ring with the work but the rig ht to control which constitutes the test. Id . at 1019 (c itation and internal quotation marks omitted). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

he ld: [I ]t is clear

that Atlas, not RCI , had the ultimate rig ht to control the work done at the Di str ibutio n Ce nte r. I n v ie wi ng the f a c ts i n th e lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to A tla s, it i s un dis pu te d th a t A tla s c on tr oll e d th e sc op e of the wo rk , p ro vid e d th e ra c k r e pa ir kit s to perfor m the work, directed RC I to use particula r mac hinery

including the propane g ener ators, g ener ally

trained RCI ’s employ ees in how to pe rfor m the work, ins tr

u cted RCI ’s e mpl oy e e s to ide nti fy the mse lve s a s A tla s’ e mpl oy e e s, and re qu e ste d d a ily productivity

repor ts from RCI ’s cr ew lea der. Although a cknowledg ing that Atlas did not alway s control RCI ’s worke rs, t he district cour t conclude d that “Atlas ha d the rig ht t o co n t ro l the work, r eg ardle ss of whethe r [it] exercised that ri gh t
. ” Acc ording to the district court: “[T]he work being done wa s Atlas’ work, A tlas had the power to direct how the work wa s done, and A tlas provided the mate rials and g ener al methods for do ingthe wo rk .” I n r e

je c tin g At la s’ s c on te nti on that RCI wa s an in de pe nd e nt c on tr a c tor un de r t he seNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 9 - c i r c u m s t an c e s , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts t a t e d t h a t , “ [ w ] h i l e c e rt a i n f

a c t s i n d i c a t e t h a t R C I d i d n o ta l w a ys follow Atlas’ instructions and made some independe nt decisions (such as when to allow e mploy ees to take a da

y off a nd what we lding method to use) , these few i n s t an ce s d o not detrac t from the Court’s conclusion that Atlas had the right to control RCI ’s employ ees.” C. We h old tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in ru lin g tha t RCI ’s wo rk e rs we re At la s’ s lo ane d s e rv a nts
as a matter of law . The dist ri ct cour t’s conclusion wa s based upon e rrone ous findings of fac t and its failure to construe the evidenc e of r ecor d in the light most favor able to Atlas. By way of backg round, W al-Mar t hired Unarco to repa ir, repla ce, a nd install storag e ra cks that had bec ome damag ed and defor med over time after coming into contact with forklifts and othe r heavy equipment. Unar co subcontra cted the rac k repa ir work to Atlas, whic h, in turn, subcontrac ted it to R CI
. The district cour

t’s fin d i n g t h at “Atlas does not disput e that it controlled the sc ope of the work” is c ontradicte d by the evidenc e of rec ord. I t is undisputed that Una rco, not Atlas, de termined the nature an d ex tent of the re pairs re quired at the Distribution C enter . RCI ’s cr oss-motion for summary judgme nt conce des that Una rco c ontr acted with Atlas “to perf orm the work to be perf ormed by Unar co under

its contract with Wal-Mar t” and that RC Imere ly

“provide [d] the labor
nece ssary to perfor m the rac k repa irs and installations . . . .” Also inacc urate when view ed in the lig ht most f avora ble to Atlas is the district court’s finding that A tla s und isp ute dly

“pro vide d th e ra c k r e pa ir kit s to pe rf

or m th e wo rk ” to R CI . In f a c t, R CINos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 10 - acknow ledg es that “U n ar co . . . provided the materials for the welding work that wa s to be done, including the rac k repa ir kits and draw ings spe cify ing how the re pairs we re to be made.” I n addition, the district c ourt err oneously implied that Atlas undisputedly made the dec ision requiringRCI “to use . . . the pr opane g ener ators” that cause d the rele ase of the ca rbon monox ide. Although A tlas conce des that its national acc ount sales manag er f or produc ts and product mana g er for r a c k r e p a ir s e r

v ic e s , D a v id O n o r a to , to ld RC I in an e ma il th at “ th e jo b is in a F r eezer . . . . [d] efinitely

have to use a propa

ne welder [,] ” RCI ’s own witnesses acknow ledg ed that the direc tive
came from Wal-Mar

t, which “de manded” the use of propane -powe red g ener ators beca use it does not permit g asoline-powe red ge nerators in food st orag e facilities like the L ondon Distribution C enter
. Regar d i n g RCI ’s claim that Onor ato told two of its employ ees to ope rate the g ener ators inside the Distribution Center whil e perf orming the work, the evidenc e re veals a fac tual dispute. Ono r a to d e n ie s th a t h e ma d e th e a ll e g e d c o mm u n ic a ti o n , an d RC I ’ s c r e w s u p e r v is o r at the Distribution C enter , Wil lie I slas, conce des t hat, i n view of W al-Mar t’s approximately

90,000 square foot fre ezer, “ it was almost impossibl e to leave . . . those g ener ators outside and r un welding cable s for long er tha

n 500 fee t.” Other

evidenc e sug g ests it wa s ac ce p t ed i ndustry prac tice to place the g ener ators inside a fac ility the siz e of the Distribution Center and close to the work a rea . Moreove r, Wal -M art wa s aw are that the pr op ane g e ne rator s w e re be ingus e d in sid e , h a d n o p oli c y a t th a t ti me prohibiting their use indoors, and did not perc eive them to be a hazard. Nor doe s the rec ord support the district cour t’s finding that Atlas require d RCI to use other

“ pa rt ic ula r m a c hin e ry [.]” As dis c us se d p re vio us ly , RCI a dmi ts that Un arc o su pp lie d th e ra c k r e pa irNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

Atlas’s sale of

wire me sh storag e produc ts acc ounted for 95% of its reve nue. 3 - 11 - kits. RC Ialso conc edes that it maintained a list of standard tools and e quipment for use dur ing r ack
r e p a i r w o r

k , an d i t i n d e p e n d e n t l y s e l e c t e d an d p r o v i d e d i t s c r e w w i t h t h e h an d an d p ow e r t oo ls,
we ldi nge qu ipm ent, a nd

re nte d g e ne ra

tor s n e e de d f

or the job . Apa

rt fr om t he fa c tua l di sp ute reg ardingwhether Atlas instructed R CI to use propane-pow ere d g ener ators, R CI does not alleg e that Atlas furnished it with tools or equipment or re quired that it use par ticular e quipment. Al tho ug h the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d c or re c tly that At la s “ g e ne ra lly tr a ine d RC I ’s e mpl oy e e s in how to perf

orm the work,” it cites no authority , and we know of none, that a business’s prior training
or me nto ri ngof

a no the r b us ine ss i s, in i tse lf , s uf fi c ie nt t o c re a te a ma ste r- se rv ant r e la tio ns hip be tw e e n th e m in de fi nit e ly . Ama ste r- se rv ant i nf e re nc e ari sin g fr om t

he tr a ini ngpr ov ide d to RCI is particula rly questionable on these fac ts for severa l rea sons. First, it had been m ore tha n a y ear since RCI cre ws last worke d along side Atlas employ ees to lea rn th e ra ck repa ir work, a nd RCI had
succe ssfully perf

ormed such work a lone on seve ral oc casions. Atlas’s tra ining of RCI employ ees was pa rt of its proce ss of “discontinu[ing] the prac tice of using direc t A tlas employ ees to install and repa ir rac ks[,] ” which, in the past dec ade, ha d g ener ated only five pe rce nt or less of Atlas’s r evenue . 3 S in ce 20 04 , At las was “us in g su b c o n t r a c t ed l abo r ex clu si vel y for rack repa ir pro jec ts [ .] ” By contra st, RC Iderive d seventy perc ent of its reve nue fr om r ack repa ir work. Rather than pre destining a ruling that Atlas controlled or desired to control RCI ’s employ ees in the pe rfor mance of their wor

k
as a matter of law, thi s evidenc e supports the oppos ite infere nce a s well – Atlas soug ht to quit t he
ra c k re pa ir bu sin e ss e nti re ly , tr ans fe r t hat po rt ion

of its bu sin e ss t o RC I , a

nd , to do so , it

tr a ine d RC INos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

The 20-ton Easy L ift hy draulic jack can lift up to 40,000 pounds and w as used to hold the 4 upper le vels of the r ack sy stem in place w hile the support struts were repa ired. - 12 - to work indepe ndently

and without Atlas’s super vision. Moreove r, t h e t ra i n i ng Atlas provided to RCIwas limited. RCI ’s employ ees w ere
e xpe ri e nc e d in, and did no t re qu ir e tr a ini ng or ins tr uc tio n in, the us e of the we ldi nge qu ipm e nt, po rt a ba nd saws , h and

too ls, and g e ne rator s nee de d to re pa ir and ins ta ll ra c ks . B e fo re fo rm ingRCI in 2003, RCI ’s pre sident and co-ow ner, Walt Thompson, had substantial e x perie nce in “ conveyor, dismantle, installs, new rac k, used ra ck, so it kind of ran the whole g amut.” L ikewise, I slas was pr e vio us ly

“ in c ha rg e of [a] w arehouse ” and

ha d w or ke d w ithwa

re ho us e a sse mbl y

sy ste ms, installing and r epair ing the m. I slas conc ed es t h at Unar co’s r ack r epair kits came with deta iled i n s t r u c t i o n s a n d dr aw i n g s , an d A t l a s d i d

n o td e v i a t e f

r o m th e i n s t r

u c t i o n s w h e nt r a i n i n g R C I. Ac c or din g to I sla s, “ Th e on ly thi ng that the At la s c re w e xpla ine d to us is h owto u se the hydr a uli c jack, the ne w piece of equipment that we wer e g oing to use ,” and training on the hy draulic jack took only “a c ouple of da

y s.” 4 Fur ther, Atlas ne ver tra ined RCI to perform ra ck re p ai r work or installation in a free zer fac ility like the Distribution Center; rathe r, its training was c onfined to ambient tempe rature
war ehouses. Nor

did Atlas provide instructions to RCI about workingwith ge nerators indoors. Most significa

ntly , the district court’s c onclusion that Atlas, as a matter of law , controlled
or “ ha d th e ult imate ri g ht to c on tr ol” RCI ’s e mpl oy e e s and the mann e r i n w hic h th e y

pe rf or me d th e ir work is simply unsupported by the evidenc e of rec ord. I n this re g ard, it is clea r that RCIdeter

minedNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 13 - the numbe r o f e mpl oy e e s to se nd to t he Di str ibutio n Ce nte r, and it s e le c te d a ll c re w m e mbe rs , including the welder s and cr ew supe rvisor I slas
. I s la s “super vised the RCIworke rs[] [and] direc t[ ed] t h e w o rkp er fo rm edb y

t h em [ ] o na d ai l y

b as i s [
. ] ” W h en as k edi nh i s d ep o s i t i o n , “[ W ] h o ’s i nch ar ge of the c rew ? ” RCIco-ow ner Walt Thompson responde d unambig uously , “The supervisor.” Wal t T ho mps on ’s wi fe and RCI c o- ow ne r, She ri Th omp so n, te sti fi e d that RCI ins tr uc ts i ts
e mpl oy e e s o n “ [ t] he sp e c if ic s o f t he job ” to b e c omp le te d a nd that, b e fo re be g inn ingwo rk a t a particula r site, RCI ’s supervisors “ inform the cr ew a s to any hazards, dang ers or

any thing the cre w should be awa

re of[.] ” I f a problem occur red at the job site, I slas was re quired to re port it to RC I ’s home offic e. RCI ’s control ove r its worker s was exemplified when the L ondon cre w experienc ed difficulties with the re nted g ener ators expelling their dipsticks. I slas consulted with RCI co-ow ner J ohn McDe rmott in RC I ’s home off ice a bout the matter, but he neither informed nor soug ht guida nce from Atlas. I f an RCIemploy ee w as injured on the job, I slas had to inf orm RCIand Wal-Mar

t, but not Atlas. Sheri Thompson ag ree d that if “ther e is a n incident wher e an RCI employ ee claims some ty pe of inj ur y . . . o r . . . so me ph y sic a l pr ob le m on the job , RC Ido e sn ’t re ly up on At la s to inv e sti g a te that injury ”; rather “ RCI would take its own steps to try to find out what was g oing on . . . .” When RCI cre w m ember s experience d sy mptoms of headac he and fatig ue at the D istribution C enter , it was I sla s, no t A tla s, wh o ma de the de c isi on to g ive the m th e da

y of f, and I sla s o nly

inf or me d O no rato b e c a u s e Is l a s c o n s i d e r e d

h i m s e l f t o b e a “ p r o f e s s i o n a l ” w h o s e d

u t y w a s t o n o t i f

y O n o r a t o o f

d e l a ys in the projec t’s completion.Nos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 14 - Also indi cative of RCI ’s autonomy is its s elec tion of the welding technique use d at the Distribution C enter . Although At l as t ra i ned RCIusing the metal inert g as, or “ MI G,” we lding
me tho d, RCI

ma de the ind e pe nd e nt d e c isi on to u se the “ arc ” we ldi ng pr oc e dure , wh ic h p ur po rt e dly require s “diffe rent tec hnique, equipment and skills” than the MI G ty pe. (I nterna l quotation marks omitted.) I n stark contr ast to RCI , Atlas had no personne l at t he job site. Onorato wa s the only Atlas
e mpl oy e e wh o ma int a ine d “ dir e c t c omm un ic a tio ns ” wi th RCI a t th e Di str ibutio n Ce nte r, and he did so from a r emote location while lacking “p er s o n al expertise [i n] i nstalling or r epair ing r acks.” On or a to s wo re in h is a ff ida vit tha t “ RCI ha d to ta l c on tr ol o ve r t he manner

in w hic h RC I
a c c omp lis he d th e fi nal r e su lt[, ]” a nd ne ith e r A tla s, no r O no rato s pe c if ic a lly , h a d th e a

uth or ity to terminate RCI employ ees. Although the district court obser ved cor rec tly , and Atlas c oncede s, that I slas was re quired to advise O norato of its prog ress da ily , Onorato stated that he “ne ver instruc ted RCI to complete spec ific tasks at a specific time[ .]” RCI cites no authority that mere communication be tw e e n c on tr a c tor s a

bo ut the pr og re ss of wo rk that is of mut ua l int e re st de mon str a te s c on tr ol a s a matter of la

w – on these f

acts, it may

more a ccur ately

sug g est coope ration, as well as pre occupation with results, rather

than methods. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

de e me d it

c ru c ia l to the loa

ne d se rv ant inq

uir y that O no rato i ns tr

uc te d RC I
cre w members to hold themselves out as A tlas employ ees. A lthough Atlas a dmits t his fact, RCIand the di strict court fail to support their vi ew that it rele g ated RC I employ ees to “ loaned se rvant” statusNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

I n a ny e ve nt, a

pp are nt autho ri ty wo uld su pp or t an ag e nc y , n ot n e c e ssa

ri ly a ma ste r- se rv a nt, 5 relationship. See Ke lley v. S. P ac. Co. , 419 U.S. 318, 325 (1974) ( “[ A] fi n d i n g o f age ncy is not tantamount to a finding of a ma ster-se rvant re lationship.”). Moreove r, whil e Kentucky has applied estoppel to p re v en t o n e from deny ing a n ag ency relationship, see CSX Transp., Inc. v . First Nat ’l Bank , 14 S.W. 3d 56 3, 56 8- 69 (K y . Ct. Ap p. 19 99 ), ne ith e r t he dis tr ic t c ourt

no r R CI c ite a uth or ity inv ok ingthe e sto pp e l do c tr ine in t he ma ste r- se rv ant c on te xt.

- 15 - a s a ma tte r o f l aw. No ta

bly , RCI do e s not expr e ssl y arg ue the or ie s of ap pa

re nt a uth or ity or e sto pp e l, 5
e ve n tho ug h it imp lie s the m, and the dis tr ic t c ourt did no t ba se its ru lin g on e ith e r. M oreo ver, it
r e ma in s th a t “ [t ]h e p r in c ip le c o n s id e r a ti o n in d e te r mi n in g th e qu e s ti o n [o f w h e th er aspecia l employ ment relationship ex ists] is the right to control t he manner of doing the work[,] ” Bowen , 32 S.W .2d at 1019, not simply whether the par ties “believe t h ey

are cre ating ” a ma ster-se rvant relationship, Ky. Unem

plo ym en t Ins. Comm’n v . Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Ky., Inc. , 91 S.W .3d 575, 579-80 (Ky . 2002) (quoting R es t at ement (2d) of Ag ency § 220(e) (2)) , or how third parties might have perc eived RC I cre w m ember s’ bus iness aff iliation, see United Eng’rs & Constrs., Inc. v . Branham , 550 S.W .2d 540, 543 (Ky . 1977) (“ [I ]n determining whe ther one is an ag ent or
serva nt or an indepe ndent contra ctor, substanc e prev ai l s o ver f orm, and . . . the ma in disposit ive criter ion is whether it is understood that the allege d principal or master ha s the rig ht to control the de ta ils of the wo rk .” ). I t is un dis pu te d that At la s and RCI a g re e d to re pr e se nt the mse lve s a s a sin g le business – Atlas – so t h at both companies w ould not compete for Unar co’s business. The re is no evidenc e sug g esting that this form over substance busine ss arra ng ement g rante d Atlas control over the manner

in which RCI completed its work. Finally , in holding that RCI ’s employ ees were Atlas’s l oaned se rvants as a matter of la

w, theNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 16 - district court re lied err oneously upon two case s, Tin da ll v. Pe rry , 283 S.W .2d 700 (Ky . 1955) and Dec ker v . Glasscock

Trucking Serv., I

nc. , 3 97 S.W. 2d 77 3 ( Ky . 1 96 5) . B oth c a se s h e ld t

hat a master- serva

nt relationship exis ted, b ut they did so beca

use the purpor

ted spec ial employ er w as phy sically

prese nt or controlled, or

had the r ight to control, the details of the a lleg ed loane d serva nt’s work. See Tin da ll , 283 S.W .2d at 701 (holding that no m i n al em ploy er “ relinquished whatever
co n t rol or rig ht of control [it] may have ha d with respec t to that day ’s ac tivity ” bec ause it neither “under took to, [n]or had the rig ht to direct[,] ” its employ ee, a nd the spec ial employ er’ s “for eman- inchar g e” w as phy sically

prese nt, “i n s tructed” the employ ee, a nd had “immediate , ultimate and
re sid ua l c on tr ol” ov e r h im) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mit te d) ; Dec ker , 397 S.W .2d at 775 (finding
a ma ste r- se rv ant r e la tio ns hip wh ere the a lle g e d ma ste r “ ha d th e ri g ht t o c on tr ol t he [se rv a nt’ s] trucks[,] . . . could work a truck or not wor

k it on a particula

r day [,]
. . . could desig nate whe n and wh e re e a c h loa d of ma te ri a l w a s to be tr ans po rt e d[,] .
. . c ou ld d ir e c t th e ro ute ov e r w hic h it wa s to be haule d[,]
. . . could begin or terminate the movement of a truc k at any time[ ,] . . . furnished the g asoline and the spare parts, at c ost, which was late r deduc ted, . . . paid [ the s erva nt] on the basis of so much per ton pe r mile [,]
. . . and [ i] n truth, [t he ser vant’s] truck driver

was wor king r eg ularly

for [t he master ] under continuing inst ructions i n the performanc e of daily work that wa s an integ ral pa rt of [the master’s] business.”). Tin da ll and Dec ker

are clea rly distinguishable f

rom the pre sent ca se. Atlas had no prese nce at the job site, and no Atlas employ ee direc ted the manner and deta ils of the
rac k repa ir work. Th e pr e se nt c a se mor e c los e ly re se mbl e s Ambrosius I

ndus., Inc. v . Adams , 293 S.W .2d 230Nos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 17 - (K y . 1 95 6) . T he re , H oll ow ay bo ug ht a c on c re te mixin g pla

nt fr om Watso n. Wat so n s e nt i ts employ ee, A dams, to the plant to help with some assembly
. Holloway also rente d a cr ane a nd two
c re wm e n f

ro m A mbr os ius to l if

t va ri ou s p lant s tr

uc tur e s in to p os iti on . A dams w a s in jur e d w hil e assistin g e mp lo ye e s o f

A mb rosius and Holloway with cer tain cra ne oper ations. The cour

t considere d whether the Ambrosius employ ees wer e func tioning as loa ned ser vants of plant owne r Holloway at the time of Adams’s injury . Holding that the issue prese nted a question for a jury , the cour

t held: The a rg ument of the Ambrosius Company is predicated almos t enti rely on the assump t ion that beca

use the Hollowa

y Company

was in g ener al cha

rg e of the e re c tio n o f t

he c e me nt m ixingpla

nt, that c omp any had

the ri g ht o f c on tr ol o ve r a ll de tai ls of the wor

k. We think that under the evide nce the re w as a jury question as to whether

the par ties contemplated that the Holloway Company wo u l d have a

ny rig ht to control the details of the wo rk o f t h e cr ane. Afair c onclusion from the evidenc e would be that the Holloway Com pany

had no rig ht to control the manner of oper ating the cr ane, or t h e m ec h anica l assembling of the plant, but had contr ol only as to coordinating these separ ate activities to achieve the ultimate result desire d. Id . at 237. L ike Ambrosius Indus., Inc. , a re asonable infere nce in the prese nt c ase is that Atlas’s role wa s
mere ly to c oordinate the repa ir projec t be tween Wal-Mart, Unar co, and RCI , not to control, or have the rig ht to control, the manner in w hich RCI repa ired and installed the rac ks. Be cause the masterserva nt inquiry is “[o] rdinarily

. . . one of f

act[,]” Bowen , 32 S.W .2d at 1019 (c itation and internal qu otatio n ma

rk s o mit te d) , a

nd we be lie ve that g e ne ra l ru le to be a pp lic a ble on the se fa c ts, we ho ld that the district court e rre d in deciding the issue as a matter of la

w. I V. For these reasons, we (1) dism iss Unar co’s appeal a s moot and (2) re verse the district court’sNos. 09-5182 & 09-5183

As he r, e t al . v . R ac k

Con v e y or In sta lla tio n, In c ., e t al

.

- 18 - g rant of summar

y judgme nt to RC I and remand for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.