I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - CT - 0 0 2 8 0 - S CT J ULI ANNA LAM

AR
v. THOM ASFOW

LER TRUCK

I NG, I NC. ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 19/ 2003 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. AN DR EW C. BA KER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: P ANO LA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: J O H N G RI FFI N J O N ES GI L S ON DAV I S P E T E RS ON T. S TE W ART L EE , J R. C R A I G R O B E R T S E S S U MS AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E : M AT T HE W ANDE RS ON T AYL OR P A U L T . L E E , J R . NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CI VI L - W OR KE RS ’ CO M P E NS AT I ON D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 05/ 24/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . A s u b c o n tr a c t o r ’ s e mp l o y e e wa s k i l l e d wh i l e h a u l i n g l o g s . Th e s u b c o n tr a c t o rc l a i ms i ti s ent i t l ed t o the “e xcl us i ve r emedy” i m m uni ty pr ovi ded by M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s w orker s’
com pen sat i on st atutes , M i ss. C od e A nn . § 7 1-3-1 etseq. (R ev. 20 00 ) ( the “A ct ”), becau se the gener al c ontr act orde duct ed w or ker s ’ c om pens at i on pr emi um s f r om pa ym ent s due the
s ubcontr act orand bec aus e one of the dec eas ed empl oyee’ s daught er s el ect ed t o acc ept
w or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s f r om the M i s s i s s i ppi L ogg ers Sel f
- I ns ur ed Fund. T heFowler Trucking was a subc ontractorof Golden Tim ber. 1 Mississ ippi Loggers Sel f-Insured Fund. 2 

### 2 dece as ed empl oyee’ s otherdaughter , the A ppel l ant , r ece i ved no w or ker s compensa t i on ben efi t s, and fi l ed a w rongful death sui t . T h e q u esti on present ed is w hetherthe w orkers ’
c o m p e n sa tio n sta tu tes p ro v id e th e su b c o n tra c to r im m u n ity fro m th e w ro n g fu l d e a th su it.

B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. T he opi ni on r ender ed i n t hi s cas e b y the C our tof A ppeal s i ncl udes an exc el l ent
re c ita tio n o f t h e fa c ts . Lam arv. Fow le rTr uc king , 2 0 0 6 M i s s . Ap p . L E XI S 2 4 9 , 2 0 0 4
- CA
00280- C O A ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) . W e pr ovi de the f ol l ow i ng abbr evi at ed ver s i on. ¶3 . I r a Bobo ( “ Bobo” ) was k i l l e d w hi l e worki ng f orFo w l e rTruc ki ng , whi ch w as tr ans por t i ng l ogs f

orG ol den Ti m ber , I nc. B obo’ s younges tdaught er, T r aci e, w as 1
c o n sid e re d a d e p e n d e n t a s d e fin e d b y s e c tio n 7 1 -3 -2 5 o f th e A c t, an d w a s v o lu n tar ily p a id d ea th b en efit s b y G o lden T im b er’s w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n ca rri er. B o b o ’s old est d au g h ter, 2 Ju lian n a L a m a r (“ L a m a r” ) h o w e v e r, w a s n o t a d e p e n d e n t as d e fin e d b y th e A c t, an d w a s p a id
n o th i n g . L a ma rf

i l e d a wr o n g f

u l d e a th s u i ta g a i n s tF o wl e rTru c k i n g , Go l d e n T i mb e ra n d t wo of G ol den Ti m ber ’ s empl oyees . G ol den T i m berand i t s em pl oyees w er e di s m i s s ed by agr eed
or der , beca us e G ol den T i m berw as B obo’ s s t atut ory empl oyerand, ther ef or e, w as af

f or ded i m m un i ty un der t he A ct . F ow l er Truck i ng m ov ed for s um m ary j ud gm ent, argui ng that i tal so w as prot ect ed b y the exclusi vity p rovi si on of the A ctbecau se i tprocured w orkers ’
co m p en sati o n insu ran ce thro u g h G o lden T im b er. A . Tri alC our t Pro c e e di ngWhil e b oth thetri al c ourt and

Co urt of Appe als fou

nd that Bob o’s “ben ef

ici ari es”or “he irs ” 3 rec ov ere d d eat

h b en ef its , w e h ast ento p oint out t hat o nly o neb en ef

ici ary , Lam ar’ s yo un ge r si ste r Tracie, was pai d dependant benefits as a resul t of Bobo’s death. 

### 3 ¶4. A tthe hea r i ng on t he mot i ons f ors um m ary j udgm ent , F ow l erT rucki ng as s ert ed that i tp ai d prem i um s t o G olden T i m ber i n order t o be i ncluded un der G olden T i m ber’ s w orkers ’ compensa t i on pol i cy. G ol den Ti m ber ’ s boo kk eeper t es t i f i ed i n herdepos i t i on thatm oney w as w i thh el d fr om pay m ents du e t o F ow l er T rucking to cove r the co stof the w orkers ’ compensa t i on pol i cy. ¶5. R el yi ng on B evi

s v. L inkous Constr. Co. , 856 So. 2d 535 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2003), the tr i al courthel d the Fow l erT ruc ki ng w as notobl i gat ed t o s ecur e w or ker s ’ compensa t i on cover age f

orB obo becaus e G ol den Ti m berpai d compensa t i on t o B obo’ s hei r s . I n B e v is , 3 the C our tof

A ppeal s s t at ed that“s o l ong as cover age i s pr ovi ded by ei therthe s ubcontr act or orthe contr actor , rec o v e ry u n d e r w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n is th e in ju re d w o rk e r’ s s o le
r emedy. ” 856 So. 2d at541 ( emphasi s added) . T he tr i al court , f i ndi ng thatthe s t atut es pr ovi ded f

oran el ect i on of

r emedi es i n this case, gra nt ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof F o w ler T ruc k ing , b ec au se B o b o ’s “b en eficiari es” rec eive d d ea th b en efit s. T h e tri al co u rt hel d thatthi s pr ecl uded Lam arf r om as s ert i ng an i ndepende ntt or tact i on agai ns tFow l er T rucki ng. B. C our t of

A ppe al s Pro c e e di ng ¶6. T he C our tof

A ppeal s af

f i r m ed the tr i al court ’ s gra ntof s um m ary j udgm enti n f avor of Fow l erT rucki ng. T he C our tof A ppeal s , how ever , f

ound thatthe tr i al courts houl d not have r el i ed on B e v is “ to fin d th a t th e ‘u p -th e -lin e ’ im m u n ity in th a t c a se a p p lied e q u a lly to
a s ubcontr act ori n a ‘ dow n- the- l i ne’ s i tuat i on. ” L am ar , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 249 at*24In a co nc urringop ini on , joine d byGrif fi s and Rob ert s, JJ., Ju dg e S outhw ick explaine d h is 4 view that L am ar’ s to rt a cti on wa s p rohibi ted

no t be cau se an e lec tio n w as mad e to acc ep t th e d eat h be ne fi ts b ut be cau se F ow ler Tru ckingha d s ecu

red co ve rag e b y p ay ingGo lden T im be r f or w orkers ’ compensation coverage. 

### 4 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls s tate d , “[w ]e d o n o t fin d th a t B e v is can aut om at i cal l y be appl i ed t o the ‘ dow n- the- l i ne’ s i tuat i on. ” Id . ¶7. T he C ou rtof A pp eal s f ou nd that Fow l er Truck i ng had fai l ed to secure w orkers ’ compensa t i on cover age a nd w as notprot ect ed “dow n- the- l i ne” by G ol den Ti m ber ’ s pol i cy. H ow ever , the C our tof

A ppeal s hel d thatbecaus e Lam ar ’ s youngers i s t erel ect ed t o acc ept the death be nef

i t s unde rthe A ct , Lam ar ’ s s ol e r emedy w as underthe A ctand notthr ough an i ndepende ntt or tact i on. L amarf i l ed a Pet i t i on f

orW r i tof

C ert i or ar i , w hi ch w e gr ant ed. 4 DI S CU S S I ON

I. ¶8 . W e a p p ly “a d e n o v o stan d ard o f rev iew to the tr ial co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm ent . ” Mos s v. B ates vil le Cas ket

Co. , 935 So. 2d 393, 398 ( M i s s . 2006) . O urrul es of ci vil proced ure r equ i re the tr i al cou rtt o g rantsum m ary j ud gm ent w here “the p l eadings, dep osi t i on s, answ ers t o i nterrogat ori es and adm i ssi on s on f i l e, t og et her w i th the aff i dav i t s, if a n y , sh o w th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n y m a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rty is en ti tl ed to a ju d g m en t as a m att er o f l aw . ” M iss. R . C iv. P. 56 (c). ¶9. T he movantbear s the bur den of demonstr at i ng thatno genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

act
e x ist fo r p re se n tatio n to th e trier o f fa c t, an d th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty m u st b e g iv e n th e b e n e fit
o f e v e ry re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Moss , 9 3 5 S o . 2 d a t 39 8 . “‘Issu es o f fac t . . . a re p rese n t w h ere one party s w ear s to one ver s i on of the mat t eri n i s s ue and a nothers ays the oppos i t e. ” I d.

### 5

( quot i ng Tu c k e r v . H

in d s C o u n ty , 5 5 8 S o . 2 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 2 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , we a p p ly th e p la in m e a n in g o f t h e s ta tu te s to th e is s u e s b e fo re th is C o u r t. See W al kerv. W hit f ield Nurs ing Ctr. , I

nc. , 9 3 1 S o . 2 d 5 8 3 , 5 9 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ).

II . ¶ 1 0 . W h ile w e a g re e w ith b o th th e trial c o u rt a n d th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls th a t L a m a r is p rec lud ed fr om sui ng i n tor tfort he w rongful death of her f at her, ou r r eason for this
con cl usi on i s m at eri al l y d i ff erentfr om tho se of bot h the tri al courtand the C ou rtof A pp eal s. A s st at ed p revi ou sly, the tr i al cou rtfound that Fow l er Truck i ng fai l ed to secure w orkers ’ compensa t i on cover age, butw as never thel es s i m m une f r om s ui tbeca us e G ol den Ti m berhad
se c u re d c o v e ra g e . T h e trial c o u rt fu rth e r fo u n d th a t F o w ler T ru c k in g w a s im m u n e fro m su it beca us e B obo’ s benef

i ci ar i es el ect ed the r emedy of w or ker s ’ compensa t i on. W hi l e r eac hi ng the s ame r es ul t , the C our tof A ppeal s re as oned di f

f er ent l y. T he C our tof A ppeal s found that Fow l erw as non- compl i antw i th t he A ctand, t her ef or e, t he A ctdi d notpr ovi de i ti m m uni ty. H ow ever, the C ou rto f A pp eal s agreed that Lam ar w as precl ud ed fr om sui ng i n tor tbecau se B ob o’s beneficiari es had e l ect ed thei r r em edy un der the A ctby recei ving w orkers ’ compensa t i on payment s f r om G ol den Ti m ber. F or di f f er entr eas ons , w e af

f i r m the tr i al
cou rt ’s grantof sum m ary j ud gm ent and t he judgm ent of the C ou rtof A pp eal s. ¶ 1 1 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o rre c tly sta ted th a t “[t]h e u lti m a te is su e is w h e th e r L a m a r is
s ta tu to ri ly p re v e n te d fr o m p u rs u in g a c o m m o n la w w ro n g fu l d e a th a c tio n a g a in s t F o w le r.” Lam arv. Fow le rTr uc king , 2004- C A
- 00280 at*9. A n empl oyee i s s t atutor i l y pre vent ed f r om pur s ui ng a c om m on l aw w r ongf ul de ath a ct i on i n one of tw o w ays . Fi r s t , i f

i tpr ovi des
w o rk e rs ’ c o m p e n s a tio n c o v e ra g e to it s e m p lo y e e s b y “ s e c u ri n g p a y m e n t o f c o m p e n s a tio n ,”

### 6

in co m p li an ce w ith sec tio n 7 1 -3-7 , then it s em p loy ee s are p rec lud ed from su ing in tort pur s uantto se ct i on 71- 3- 9, w hi ch pr ovi des thatw or ker s ’ compensa t i on payment s ar e the excl us i ve r emedy w hen the empl oyersec ur es paym entof compensa t i on. M i s s . C ode A nn. § § 7 1 -3-7 , 7 1 -3-9 (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶ 1 2 . S e c o n d , ev e n if a n e m p lo y e r f a ils to s e c u re p a y m e n t o f c o m p e n sa tio n , in c e rta in ci r cumst ance s , an empl oyee may “el ect ” t o pr ocee d underthe pr ovi s i ons of the A cti n l i eu o f m a in ta in in g a n a c tio n a t la w fo r d a m a g e s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71-3- 9. O nce a n “el ect i on of

r emedi es ” i s m ade, then the party el ect i ng t o pr ocee d underthe pr ovi s i ons of t he W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on A cti s pre cl uded f r om sui ng i n t or t . I n the ca s e bef or e us , w e f

i nd th a t F o w le r T ru c k in g c o m p lie d w ith s e c tio n 7 1 -3 -7 b y “ s e c u ri n g p a y m e n t o f c o m p e n s a tio n ,” and theref

ore, w e need no tadd res s the is sue of el ect i on of r em edies . III . ¶ 1 3 . W hi l e bot h t he t r i al cour t and t he C our t of A ppe a l s f

oc us ed on t he contr act or/ s ubcontr act orr el at i ons hi p betw een G ol den T i m berand Lam arT rucki ng, anal yzi ng “up- the- l i ne” a nd “ dow n- the- l i ne” i m m uni ty c oncept s , w e f i nd thata nal ys i s t o be
u n n ec essa ry, as the issue o f w h ethe r Fo w ler T ruc k ing i s i m m u n e from suittu rns o n statu tory l anguage , thati s , w hetherF ow l ercom pl i ed w i th sec t i on 71-3- 7 by “s ecur [ i ng] the payment to [its ] e m p lo y e e s . . . .” ¶14. Fow l e rTruc ki ng a r gu e s tha tw he n worke r s ’ compensa t i on cover age i s pr ovi ded ei ther by the s ubcontr act ororthe contr act or , r ecove ry unde rw or ker s ’ compensa t i on i s the i nj ur ed
w o rk e r’s s o le r e m e d y . T h is c o n c e p t, oc c a sio n a lly lab e led “ d o w n -th e -lin e ” im m u n ity , is ap p li ca b le w h ere itca n b e jus ti fi ed b y statu tory lang u ag e. W e find that F o w ler T ruc k ing ’sThis statut ory concept i s also applied to a subcontract or of a subcontract or. Se e Crowe v. 5 Bras field & Go rri

e G en . C on str ., 68 8 S o. 2d

75 2, 75 7 (M iss . 1 99 6). In the case of a subcontractor , securing payment of workers’ compensation benefits may be 6 accomplished by eitherpurchasing a workers’ compensation insurance pol icy or by provi ding funds for the general contractorto purchase the coverage, so long as the coverage is actual ly secured. A ge ne ralco ntractor maysecurepaym ent of be ne fits by purchasing a po lic y, or b y c ontra ctu ally req uiringits su

bc ontra cto rs t o s ecu

re s uc h c ov erage .



### 7 c o m p lia n c e w ith th e A c t p ro v id e s it th e p ro te c tio n o f t h e “ e x c lu s iv e re m e d y ” p ro v is io n . W e f ur therf i nd l abel i ng the pr ot ect i on as “dow n- the- l i ne” i m m uni ty i s conf us i ng and
unnece s s ary. ¶15. Pur s uantt o s ect i on 71- 3- 5, Fowl e rTruc ki ng qu a l i f i e d a s a n “ empl oyer ” bec aus e i t had “f i ve ( 5) or m or e w or km en oroper at i ves . . . underany contr actof hi r e. ” Ther ef

or e, as an empl oyer , Fow l erTrucki ng ha d a n obl i gat i on t o s ecur e compensa t i on f ori t s em pl oyees p u rsu a n t to se c tio n 7 1 -3 -7 (d ), w h ich sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

E very empl oyert o w hom thi s chapt erappl i es s hal l be l i abl e f orand s hal l s ecur e the paym entt o hi s empl oyees of the compens at i on payabl e under i t s provi si on s. I n the cas e of

an empl oyerw ho i s a s ubcontr act or , [ ] the contr act or 5 sh a ll b e liab le f

o r a n d sh a ll se c u re th e p a y m e n t o f su c h c o m p e n sa tio n to empl oyees of

the subcontr act or , unl es s the s ubcontr act orhas s ecur ed s uch p a y m e n t. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 7- ( d) ( R ev. 2000) ( emphasi s added) . T hu s, if F ow l erT rucki ng “s ecur ed s uch pay m ent, ” t hati s , i f i tt ook pr opers t eps t o pr ovi de f orthe paymentof 6
w or ker s ’ c om pens at i on be nef i t s , then i ti s i m m une f

r om s ui ti n t or tpur s uantt o s ect i on 71- 3- 9 , w h ich sta tes th a t, T h e li a b ili ty o f an em p lo y e r to p a y co m p e n sa tio n sh a ll b e ex c lu siv e a n d in p lac e o f a ll o th e r lia b ili ty o f s u c h e m p lo y e r to th e e m p lo y e e . . . ex c e p t th a t if a n e m p lo y e r fa ils to s e c u re p a y m e n t o f c o m p e n sa tio n a s re q u ire d b y th is c h a p ter , an inju re d em p lo y e e , o r h is leg a l rep re se n tativ e in c a se d e a th re su lts

### 8

fro m th e in

ju ry , m a y e le c t t o c laim c o m p e n sa tio n u n d e r th is c h a p ter , o r to m a in ta in a n a c tio n a t la w fo r d a m a g e s o n a c c o u n t o f s u c h in ju ry o r d e a th . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 9- (Rev. 2000). T he C our tof A ppeal s corr ect l y not ed that“[ b] y the lan g u a g e o f th e A c t, i m m u n ity is a v a ilab le o n ly to th o se e m p lo y e rs w h o o p e ra te in compl i ance w i th the A ct . ” L am ar , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 249 at*18. T he C our tof A ppeal s w enton t o s t at e that“the exc l us i vi ty f r amew or k has been e xt ended by the M issi ssipp i S u p re m e C o u rtto inc lud e tho se e m p loy ers w h o m ay b e c o n side red ‘st atuto ry empl oyer s ’ unders ect i on 71- 3- 7. T hi s i s the pr i nci pal of ‘ up- the- l i ne’ i m m uni ty, and i thas become w el l
- es t abl i s hed i n M i s s i s s i ppi l aw . ” L am ar , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 249 at*19;
s ee Mosley v. B ow ers , 224 M i s s . 725, 80 So. 2d 819, 821 ( M i s s . 1955) ( thi s C our text ended
w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n im m u n ity to a g en era l con tr ac tor w h o w as c o n side red a statuto ry e m p lo y e r o f it s s u b c o n tra c to r’s e m p lo y e e s); D oubleday v. B oyd Constr. Co. , 418 So. 2d 823, 8 2 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 ) (fin d in g th a t se c tio n 7 1 -3 -7 d o e s n o t su b jec t a g e n e ra l co n tra c to r to
comm on l aw l i abi l i ty i f he r equi r ed the s ubcontr act ort o have w or ker s ’ compensa t i on in su ra n c e ); R i ch m on d v. B en ch m ark C on str. , Corp . , 692 So. 2d60 , 63 ( M i s s . 1997) ( f i ndi ng thatan or al agr eementbet w een a ge ner al contr act orand s ubcontr act orthatthe s ubcontr act or w ou l d p rov ide w orkm en’s com pen sat i on i nsurance w as suf fi ci ent t o ex t end w orkers ’
co m p en sati o n im m u n ity to a g en era l con tr ac tor). ¶1 6 . W e w ish to p o int o u t th at the im m u n ity en jo y e d b y g e n e ra l c o n tr ac tors is n o t a g if t from this C o u rt , n o r i s i t an ex tr a-statutory co n ce p t, bu t rathe r i s g ran ted b y the L eg isl ature undercert ai n s t atut or i l y- def i ned ci r cumst ance s . Fori ns t ance , thi s C our ti n D oubleday f ound thatthe gene r al contr act or , B oyd, enj oyed the s t a tut ory i mm un i ty b y “ c on tr a c tua l l y r equi r i ngCo rbi tt i s th e d aughter of Carlo n G olden , th e founder of GoldenTi m be r. S hestarte d 7 wo rkingfo r G oldenT im

be r in 19 82 a s a sec ret ary and stated in h er dep os iti on

that sh e h as “ taken ov er”theof

fi ce. Co rbi tt also serv ed

on theboard of

dire cto rs f

or F ow ler Tr uc king f rom 19 95 until 1997. 

### 9 [ i t s s ubcontr act or ] t o s ecur e a pol i cy of i ns ur ance on i t s empl oyees . ” 418 So. 2d at827. The D ou bleday Cour tw e nton t o s t a t e tha tthe ge ne r a l c on tr a c t or“ ‘ s e c ur e d’ c ompe ns a t i on i ns ur ance f

orthe bene f

i tof D oubl eday w i thi n the m eani ng and purpos e of t he s t atut e. ” I

d. ¶17. T he cr i t i cal ques t i on i n t oday’ s cas e is w hetherF ow l er compl i ed w i th the A ct by

“ s e c u ri n g th e p a y m e n t to h is e m p lo y e e s o f t h e c o m p e n s a tio n p a y a b le u n d e r i ts p ro v is io n s .” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 7( d) ( R ev. 2000 ). If so, Fow l erT rucki ng i s cover ed by the
e x c lu s iv e n e s s o f l ia b ility o f s e c tio n 7 1 -3 -9 . IV . ¶ 1 8 . I n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e rF o wl e rc o mp l i e d wi th M i s s . Co d e An n . S e c t i o n 7 1
- 3
- 7 ( d ) , we turn t o f act s i n t he r ecor d bef

or e us, fi ndi ng t hatF ow l erdi d s ecur e compens at i on as r equi r ed by the A ct . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatFow l erT rucki ng haul ed l ogs excl us i vel y f orG ol den T i m ber . G ol den T i m berobt ai ned w or ker s ’ c om pens at i on i ns ur ance thr ough the M i s s i s s i ppi L o g g e rs A ss o c iatio n S e lf -I n su re d F u n d . D e p o sitio n tes tim o n y o f C a rla C o rb itt , th e R u le 7 3 0 (b )(6 ) re p re se n tativ e o f G o ld e n T im b e r, in d ica ted th a t G o ld e n T im b e r d e d u c ted p a y m e n ts f orw or ker s ’ compensa t i on i ns ur ance f orFow l erT rucki ng’ s empl oyees f r om Fow l er T rucki ng’ s gr os s pay. A ddi t i on al l y, C orbi t t ’ s t es t i m ony i ndi cat ed, s uppor t ed by var i ous s t at ement s i n the r ecor d f r om the M i s s i s s i ppi L ogger s A s s oci at i on Sel f
- I ns ur ed Fund, t hat paymentf

or“ contr acttrucki ng” cover age w as c al cul at ed ata r at e of $7 perda y pe r truck. C orbi t ts t at ed that“the i ns ur ance w as hel d outf r om Fow l erT ruck i ng eac h w eek. T he

### 10

pr emi um w as $7 perda y pe rtruck, w hi ch w as de duct ed f r om the gr os s w ages atthe end of th e w e e k .” W h e n a s k e d w h o fi g u re d th e p re m iu m , C o rb itt a n s w e re d , “ [m ]o s t o f th e ti m e , I di d. ” C orbi t ts t at ed thati ns t ead of cal cul at i ng the pr emi um by empl oyee na m es , G ol den T i m berc al cul at ed the pr emi um s by l i s t i ng the truck thatthe Fow l erT rucki ng empl oyee w as dr i vi ng. ¶19. T hom as Fow l er , pr es i dentof Fow l erT ruc ki ng , a l s o t e s t i f i e d d ur i ng hi s depos i t i on that
w or ker s ’ compensa t i on pr em i um s w er e pai d by Fow l erT rucki ng f orcompany em pl oyees th ro u g h d e d u c tio n s a t a r a te o f $ 7 p e r tru c k p e r d a y . In a d d iti o n , F o w ler tes tified th a t to h is
un derst and i ng , w orkers ’ com pen sat i on prem i um s w ere al w ays d edu ct ed fr om the g ross pr ocee ds r ece i ved f

r om G ol den T i m ber . Fur therm or e, the r ecor d c ont ai ns a Cer t i f i cat e of L i abi l i ty I ns ur ance w hi ch names G ol den T i m bera s the i ns ur ed and Fow l era s a n addi t i onal insu red . F inally, f

o ll o w ing the d ea th o f B o b o , re p o rt s o f i n jury (M W C C F o rm B -3) w ere f i l ed on beha l f

of B obo w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on C om m i s s i on and, as a res u lt , the M issi ssipp i L o g g ers A sso ciati o n S elf-I n su red F u n d p aid d ep en d an t be n e fits t ot al i ng $6, 725. 60 t o B obo’ s younges tdaught er , T r aci e, unt i l s he r eac hed the age of 23. ¶20. W e f

i nd, t her ef

or e, t hatsuf

f i ci entevi dence exi s t s i n t he r ecor d t o show t hatFow l er T rucki ng com pli ed w i th the A ctby “securi ng cov erage” for B o b o , it s em ployee. B ecause w e fi n d tha t F o w ler T ruc k ing d id so , w e n ee d n o t add ress w h ethe r B o b o ’s be n eficiari es a re precl ud ed fr om sui ng i n tor tbecau se they el ect ed to r ecei ve co m pen sat i on ben efi t s.

### 11 CO NC L US I ON ¶2 1. W e f

i nd tha tFo w l e rTruc ki ng c ompl i ed w i t h t he pl ai n l anguage of t he A ct by “s e c ur i ng c ompe ns a t i on , ” f ori t s e mpl oy e e s a nd , a s a r e s ul t , Lamari s pr e c l ud e d f r om p u rsu in g an ac tio n in to rt ag a in st F o w ler T ru c k in g . T h e re fo re , th e tri a l co u rt d id n o t er r in gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof Fow l erT rucki ng. F ur therm or e, t he j udgm entof the C our tof A ppeal s i s af

f i r m ed. ¶ 2 2 . AFF I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., W A L L E R , P .J ., E A S L E Y , C A R L S O N A N D R A N D O L P H , J J ., CO NCU R. DI AZ , P. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEPA RA TE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON J OI NED B Y G R A V E S , J . LA M AR, J . , NOT P ART I CI P AT I NG . DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 2 3 . U n d e r th e re a so n in g o f th e m a jo rity , n o su b c o n tra c to r in M iss iss ip p i ev e r h as to sec u re w orkers ’ com pen sat i on i nsurance. B ecause n o such exem pti on i s p rese n t i n the W orkers ’ C om pens at i on A ct , and bec aus e the m aj or i ty t oday dr af t s a dr amat i c new expans i on i nt o the la w , I m u s t r e s p e c tf

u lly d is s e n t. I. T h e T h re e M eth o d s o f C o m p lying w it h th e A ct. ¶24. A ny r evi ew of a cas e under the A ct m ust necessa r i l y s t art w i th the w or di ng of t he
s t atut es , w hi ch w e then appl y t o the f act s of the ca s e. T he maj or i ty corr ect l y concl udes t hat F o w ler T ru c k in g is c o v e re d u n d e r S e c tio n 7 1 -3 -5 , w h ich m a n d a tes th a t all e m p lo y e rs w ith fi v e o r m ore em ployees m ust ha v e w o rke rs’ co m p en sati o n insu ran ce . Y et th e o p inion w av ers on the conce ptf

r om thatpoi ntonw ar ds , c r af t i ng a “good enough” s t andar d thati s notpr es ent in th e sta tu tes . P a rtly to b lam e is o u r u n n e c e ss a rily c o m p lica ted c a se la w th a t h a s ju d icia lly
re w ritten th e A c t.

### 12

¶25. T he L egi s l atur e s aw f i t t o expl ai n exactl y w hat cons t i tut es “s ecur i ng cover age” f or the purpos es of

the A cti n Sect i on 71- 3- 75 of the C ode. A s the C our tof A ppeal s expl ai ned, t hi s c od e s e c t i on “ pr ov i de s thr e e mec ha ni s ms f ors e c ur i ty o f

pa ymen t : ( 1) by a c ar r i er a u th o riz e d to in s u re su c h liab ili ty in th is s tate ; (2 ) b y e x e m p tio n fro m in su rin g p u rsu a n t to author i ty f

r om the comm i s s i on; ( 3) and by s el f
- i ns ur i ng orpool i ng l i abi l i t i es w i th ot her empl oyer s engage d i n a comm on type of bus i nes s underrul es and r egul at i ons pr es cr i bed by the comm i s s i on. ” L am arv. T hom as Fow lerT

r ucking, I

nc. , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 249,
* 1 7 n .4 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ); s ee T aylorv. Cr os by For es t

P r oduct s Co. , 198 So. 2d 809, 811 ( M i s s . 1967) ( “The r equi r ementthatthe empl oyermusts ecur e paymentof compensa t i on m eans t hat he m usthav e i n eff ectan insur ance p oli cy co m plyi ng w i th the w orkm en ’s compensa t i on act , orm us tqual i f y as a s el f

i ns ur er . ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i on om i t t ed) . T her e ar e, then, thr ee w ays one compl i es w i th the A ct : by gett i ng a compl i ant i ns ur ance pol i cy, by obt ai ni ng exempt i on, orby s el f
- i ns ur i ng. ¶26 . F ow l er Truck i ng ad m it ted itd id n o tsecure coverage thr ou gh the fi rs ttw o m eans; instead , itarg u es th at i t i n d ir ec tl y secu red co v era g e thro u g h the c o rpo rati o n itco n tr ac ted fo r, G ol den Ti m ber , ef

f ect i vel y “s el f

- i ns ur i ng. ” A s t he C ou rtof A ppeal s s t at ed i t , “Fow l er T rucki ng ar gues that. . . the s ubcontr act or i s e nt i t l ed t o i m m uni ty f r om s ui tbe caus e i tw as a c tu a lly p a y in g th e g e n e ra l co n tra c to r fo r th e w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n c o v e ra g e o f its empl oyees . ” L am ar , 200 6 M i ss. A pp. L E X I S 249, at*9. Y etthe onl y m ethod of
c o m p lian c e lef

t o p e n to F o w ler T ru c k in g , the th ird m e th o d o f s e lf-in su rin g d e fin e d in d e tail i n Sect i on 71- 3- 75, m us tbe metexac t i ngl y. I n f ul l , the r equi r ements t at es the f ol l ow i ng:

### 13

( 3) Pool i ng of

l i abi l i t i es . T he comm i s s i on m ay, un der such rul es and r egul at i ons as i tpr es cr i bes , perm i ttw o ( 2) orm or e empl oyer s engage d i n a c o m m o n ty p e o f b u s in e ss a c tiv ity o r p u rsu it, o r h a v in g o th e r re a so n s to as s oci at e, t o ent eri nt o agr eement s t o pool thei rl i abi l i t i es unde rthi s s ect i on f or the purpos e of

qual i f yi ng as gr oup sel f

- i ns ur er s , and, i n conj unct i on ther ew i th, t o ent eri nt o agreem ent s t o pool any otherl i abi l i t i es t o thei rempl oyees , and ea ch em p loy er m em b er o f suc h ap p rov ed g rou p sh a ll b e classifi ed as a selfi ns ur er . A s el f

- i ns ur ed gr oup underthi s s ect i on s hal l be compr i s e d of empl oyer m ember s of

t he s ame bona f

i de tr ade a s s oci at i on ortr ade gr oup. Such tr ade a ss o c iatio n o r trad e g ro u p sh a ll b e d o m icile d in th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i, sh a ll have be en i n exi s t ence f orf i ve ( 5) orm or e cons ecut i ve year s as of the dat e of appl i cat i on f

or an appr oved gr oup and s hal l notbe compr i s ed s ol el y of empl oyerm ember s w ho ar e af f i l i at es of a per s on pos s es s i ng contr ol l i ng i nter esti n such aff

i l i at es. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 75 (3) (Rev. 2000). T her e i s no evi dence Fow l erT rucki ng compl i ed
w i th these procedu res . ¶27. T he maj or i ty c oncerns i t s el f w i th the r el at i ve us ef

ul nes s of “dow n- the- l i ne” or“upthe- l i ne” i m m uni ty, di s t i nct i ons w hi ch I agr ee ar e unnece s s ary and conf us i ng; f ur ther , they appea rt o be j udi ci al i nt erpr et at i ons gr af t ed ont o the very expl i ci tr equi r ement s of the A ctas w r i t t en by the Legi s l atur e. I n m y vi ew , beca us e Fow l erT rucki ng al r eady qua l i f i ed as an “em ployer” und er the A ct , any dis cussi on or anal ysi s of general con tract ors, subco ntr act ors, or“dow n- the- l i ne” orotheri m m uni ty i s unneces s ary, as the A cti s cl earon w hati s r equi r ed of an empl oyer . A s the C our tof A ppeal s not ed, and w hats houl d go w i thouts ayi ng, “[ i ] f t he
s ubcontr act orempl oys f i ve orm or e empl oyees , i tm us ts ecur e w orker s ’ compensa t i on cover age. ” L am ar , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 249, at*26. R egar dl es s of w hetherFow l er T rucki ng w as a subco ntr act or atthis part i cularw orksi t e, an y em ployer un der t he A ctm ust have metone of

the thr ee methods of

compl i ance .

### 14

¶ 2 8 . U ltim a te ly , th is c a s e re v o lv e s a ro u n d o n e k e y q u e s tio n . D id F o w le r T ru c k in g , as an em pl oyer , conf

or m t o the r equi r ement s of Sect i on 71- 3- 75, w hich expl ai ns the thr ee w ays of compl i a nc e ? The a ns w e r , a s the Courto f Appe a l s a c kn owl e dg e d, i s s i mpl y “ no . ” See L am ar , 2006 M i s s. A pp. L E X I S 249, at*17 n. 4. I ti s cl earf r om the f act s of thi s cas e that F o w le r T ru c k in g fa iled to se c u re w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n sa tio n in su ra n c e a s re q u ire d b y sta tu te b ec au se itdid n o t eith er: 1 ) get i n su ran ce directl y ; (2) o b tai n an ex em p ti o n ; or (3) se lf -i n su re orpool l i abi l i t i es as l ai d outi n the A ctor the W or ker s ’ C om pens at i on C om m i s s i on re g u la tio n s . ¶ 2 9 . Fow l erat t empt ed t o ar gue t hat“ w he r e a ny e mpl oy e rs e c ur e s pa ymen t of compensa t i on, al l empl oyer s a r e i m m une. ” L am ar , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 249, at*27- 28. N o s ect i on of

the A ctal l ow s s uch a r es ul t . U nderthi s r eas oni ng , the ve ry hear tof the A ct–r equi r i ng empl oyer s w i th f i ve orm or e empl oyees t o s ecur e i ns ur ance –i s gutt ed. A s t he C our tof A ppeal s r eas oned, “w e mustpr es um e that , due t o the abs ence of l anguage gr ant i ng i m m uni ty t o a pa r ty s uch as Fow l erT rucki ng, i tw as notthe l egi s l atur e’ s i nt entt o aw ar d s uch i m m uni ty. ” I

d . a t * 3 3 . ¶30. Fow l er T rucki ng w i s hes t o hi de f r om the cl ear r equi r ement s of the A ct under a cl oak
o f im m u n ity d ra w n fro m th e c o m p lica ted a n d c o n fu sin g p re c e d e n t o f th is C o u rt. N onethel es s , i ti s an empl oyerand f ai l ed t o f ol l ow one of

the thr ee methods of

compl i ance w i th the A ct . I ti s i m per at i ve thatw e r eturn t o a pl ai n readi ng of the A ctand aba ndon t he
o n g o in g “

ju d ic ia l r e w ri te ” th a t s tr e tc h e s b a c k d e c a d e s . ¶31. T he m aj or i ty i s corr ect w hen i t not es that the i m m uni ty of empl oyer s i s not a gi f t , but a gr antf r om t he Legi s l atur e. M or e pr eci s el y, i ti s al s o a tr ade- of f of r i ght s : the empl oyee

### 15

gi ves up hi s orherr i ghtt o m ai nt ai n s ui tf ori ns ur ance , e ven as the empl oyermustpa y f ort he i ns ur ance w hi l e gai ni ng as s ur ance of i m m uni ty. Y ett he maj or i ty’ s opi ni on t oday is a g if t notgr ant ed by the Legi s l atur e. U nderi t s reas on i ng, and contr ary t o the i nt entof t he L eg isl ature an d the p lai n lan g u a g e o f th e A ct, so m e e m p loy ers w il l no t hav e to s ec u re i ns ur ance . ¶ 3 2 . B e c a u se F o w le r T ru c k in g fa iled to s e c u re c o v e ra g e o r e x e m p tio n u n d e r th e A c t, i ts sta tu to ry im m u n ity is s a c rific e d ; a c c o rd in g ly , I w o u ld a llo w M s. L a m a r to p u rsu e a su it i n c o u rt fo r t h e lo s s o f h e r f a th e r. II. T h e E l ecti on of R em ed i es. ¶ 3 3 . I co n c lu d e , a s d id the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, th a t F o w ler T ru c k in g w a s n o t im m u n e to su it. I di s agr ee w i th the C our tof A ppeal s thatM s . L amarhas no ri gh tto pr ocee d i n the l egal sy ste m b e c a u se sh e h a s a lre a d y e lec ted to o b tain b e n e fits u n d e r th e A c t. ¶34. Sect i on 71- 3- 9 of the A ct pr ovi des that w hen an empl oyer f ai l s t o s ecur e paymentof compensa t i on as r equi r ed by the w or ker s ’ compensa t i on s t atut es , “an i nj ur ed em pl oyee , or his l egal

r epr es entat i ve i n cas e death r esul t s fr o m th e in

ju ry , m a y e lec t to c laim compensa t i on underthi s chapt er , ort o m ai nt ai n an ac t i on atl aw f orda m ages on acc ountof
s uch i nj ury ordeath. ” ( emphasi s added) . T he A ctdoes notdef i ne the t erm “l egal
re p re s e n ta tiv e ,” a n d th is C o u rt h a s n o t ad d re ss e d th e p re c ise m e a n in g o f th is te rm in
connec t i on w i th § 71- 3- 9. H ow ever , w e have exami ned the t erm i n the cont extof a pr evi ous v ersion o f ou r no n -reside n t m o tori st st atute, M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 3 -3-6 3 (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶35. I n H

il l v. Jam es , a L ou i si ana res i den tw as i nj ur ed i n an aut om obi l e ac ci denton a M i ssi ssi pp i highw ay w hil e ri ding as a p assenger w i th ano ther L ou i si ana resi den t . 25 2 M i ss.

### 16

501, 175 So. 2d 176 (1965) . W e car ef ul l y anal yzed the t erm “l egal r epr es ent at i ve, ” not i ng th a t: T he f

ol l ow i ng w or ds ‘ orotherl egal r epr es ent at i ve of the es t at e’ . . . i n o ur opi ni on, l i kew i s e s i gni f y a per s on orpe r s ons a ct i ng f orthe benef

i tof another in a l eg al or repre sen tat ive c ap ac ity su ch as a n ad m inistrator c u m tes ta m e n to annexo , ad m inistratri x , ex ec u tr ix, adm inistrator de bonis non , adm i nis trat o r de bonis non cum t es tam ento annexo , and ot her s i n a l i ke posi t i on orcl as s di s t i nct f r om one as an i ndi vi dual orone i n an i ndi vi dual capa ci ty. Id . at179. I n acc or dance w i th thi s f i ndi ng, w e f

ound thatthe s t atut e di d not“author i ze a n a c tio n to b e b ro u g h t ag a in st th e w id o w o r m in o r c h ild re n o f a n o n re sid e n t d e c e d e n t in th e ir i ndi vi dual capa ci t i es . ” Id . at178. ¶3 6 . W e m o re rec en tl y so u g h t to asc ertain the m ea n ing o f the term “re p rese n tat iv e ,” in det erm i ni ng “w hethera M i s s i s s i ppi tr i al courthad per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overL oui s i ana r es i dent s purs uantt o t he l ong- arm s t atut e. ” S ealy v. G odda rd , 91 0 S o. 2d 50 2, 50 6 (M i ss. 2005) . Fi ndi ng H

ill to b e in stru c tiv e , this C o u rt fo u n d th a t “s e rv ice o f p ro c e ss c o u ld o n ly be made upon the ‘ nonr es i dentexec ut or , admi ni s tr at or , r ece i ver , trus t ee orany others el ect ed
o r a p p o in te d r e p re s e n ta tiv e ’” o f th e d e c e d e n t. Id . at511. W e f ound that“[ c] l ear l y, none of thes e s t atut ory t erm s appl y t o t he i ndi vi dual Seal y hei r s . ” Id . ¶37. I n thi s cas e, M r . B obo’ s younges tdaught err ece i ved the f unds ; s he w as a m i norat the ti m e. In a p p lying the p rec ed en t of H ill and Seal

y t o the l ang uag e of Sec t i on 71- 3- 9, t he paymentm ade t o the mi nordoes notr es ul ti n an el ect i on of r eme dies by M r . B obo’ s l egal
r epr es ent at i ve, hi s otherdaught er , M s . L amar . A ccor di ng t o the s t atut e, w hen an empl oyer c o v e re d b y th e A c t fa ils to se c u re c o v e ra g e , o n e o f tw o p e rso n s c a n m a k e th e e lec tio n to
re c e iv e c o m p e n sa tio n b e n e fits in lieu o f su in g in to rt. T h a t i s, the “in ju re d e m p lo y e e o r h is

### 17

l egal r epr es ent at i ve i n cas e dea th r es ul t s f r om the i nj ury. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 3- 9 ( R ev. 2 0 0 0 ). B e c a u se M r. B o b o ’s in ju ri e s u ltim a te ly c a u s e d h is d e a th , onl y his l egal

r epr es entat i ve c o u ld h a v e w a iv e d th e rig h t to b rin g su it b y e lec tin g to c laim c o m p e n sa tio n u n d e r th e A c t. ¶38. Shoul d the l egal r epr es ent at i ve of the dece dent el ect compensa t i on benef i t s w hen an empl oyerf

ai l s t o compl y w i th the A ct , then the l egal r epr es ent at i ve has ef f ect i vel y “el ect ed the r emedy” acc or di ng t o the A ct . H ow ever, S ect i on 71- 3- 9 does notl i cens e one of t he d e c e d e n t’s d e p e n d e n t ch ild re n to se ttl e a c laim o n b e h a lf o f th e e sta te o r th e w ro n g fu l d e a th benef i ci ar i es w i thoutan appr opr i at e pr ocee di ng bef or e a c our t , such as the openi ng of an es t at e by a pe r s onal r epr es ent at i ve orthe i ni t i at i on of l egal pr oceedi ngs on behal f of t he
w ron g ful d ea th b en eficiari es. T h ere fore , c o n tr ary to the o p inion o f th e tri al co u rtan d C o u rt of A ppeal s , i n m y r eadi ng M s . L amardi d notel ectcompensat i on underthe A ctw hen her y o u n g e r s is te r r e c e iv e d d e p e n d e n t b e n e fi ts a s a re s u lt o f t h e irfa th e r’ s d e a th . ¶39. Forthe r eas ons above, I r es pect f ul l y di s s entf

r om the maj or i ty. I w oul d r ever s e the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d th e trial c o u rt, find in g th a t F o w le r T ru c k in g w a s n o t im m u n e to su it
a n d th a tM s . La ma ri s e l i g i b l e t o p u r s u e h e rs u i ti n th e M i s s i s s i p p i c o u r ts y s t e m. GRAVE S , J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.