Source: https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/workers-compensation/b/exclusive-remedy/archive/tags/intentional+tort
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 04:11:10
Document Index: 27932275

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 440', '§ 23', '§103', '§ 440', '§103', '§ 23']

Alter Ego of Employer
virtually certain standard
Ohio: Intentional Tort Action Against Employer Fails
An Ohio appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment decision in favor of an employer in an injured employee’s intentional tort claim, agreeing with the trial court that the employee failed to show the employer intended to... Read More
Tags: intentional tort , Ohio workers compensation , workplace safety
Posted on 2 Aug 2013 by Larson's Spotlight
Construing the state’s intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity (§ 440.11(1)(b), Fla. Stat.), a Florida appellate court recently affirmed a trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in favor of plaintiff’s... Read More
Tags: intentional tort , virtually certain standard , Florida workers compensation
WV: Intentional Tort Exception to Exclusivity Applies to Employers Only, Not Co-Employee Supervisors
Answering a certified question presented by a U.S. District Court (S. D. W. Va.) regarding whether a “deliberate intent” cause of action pursuant to W. Va. Code § 23–4–2(d)(2)(ii) may be brought against a non-employer “person... Read More
Tags: West Virginia workers compensation , co-employee , intentional tort , exclusive remedy
New York: Removal of Safety Screen Was Insufficient to Support Intentional Tort
Posted on 23 Aug 2013 by Larson's Spotlight
A divided New York appellate court, applying the exclusive remedy provisions of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act—the employee’s injury occurred there—recently held that a trial court properly granted summary judgment to... Read More
Tags: New York workers compensation , intentional tort , exclusive remedy
WY: Employee’s Intentional Tort Action Against Co-Employees Fails
Posted on 18 Oct 2013 by Larson's Spotlight
As noted in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law , §§103.03, 103.04, when construing the intentional tort exception to a state’s Workers’ Compensation Act, most jurisdictions say “intent means intent,” that... Read More
Tags: wyoming workers compensation , intentional tort , exclusive remedy
Posted on 4 Jul 2013 by Larson's Spotlight
The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently affirmed a trial court’s Order granting summary judgment in favor of an employer in a civil action alleging intentional tort filed against it by an injured employee in spite of the employee’s contentions... Read More
Tags: supervisor , Connecticut workers compensation , intentional tort , Alter Ego of Employer , exclusive remedy rule
Blog Post: Connecticut: Supervisor’s Actions Did Not Support Intentional Tort Action; Supervisor Not Alter Ego of Employer
The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently affirmed a trial court’s Order granting summary judgment in favor of an employer in a civil action alleging intentional tort filed against it by an injured employee in spite of the employee’s contentions that he had been told by his supervisor that...
Blog Post: Florida: Construction Worker’s Intentional Tort Action Fails Under “Virtually Certain” Standard
Construing the state’s intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity (§ 440.11(1)(b), Fla. Stat.), a Florida appellate court recently affirmed a trial court’s entry of final summary judgment in favor of plaintiff’s statutory employer. The court indicated the...
Blog Post: New York: Removal of Safety Screen Was Insufficient to Support Intentional Tort
A divided New York appellate court, applying the exclusive remedy provisions of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act—the employee’s injury occurred there—recently held that a trial court properly granted summary judgment to an employer in an employee's action under intentional...
Blog Post: WY: Employee’s Intentional Tort Action Against Co-Employees Fails
As noted in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law , §§103.03, 103.04, when construing the intentional tort exception to a state’s Workers’ Compensation Act, most jurisdictions say “intent means intent,” that nothing short of a conscious and deliberate intent...
Blog Post: WV: Intentional Tort Exception to Exclusivity Applies to Employers Only, Not Co-Employee Supervisors
Answering a certified question presented by a U.S. District Court (S. D. W. Va.) regarding whether a “deliberate intent” cause of action pursuant to W. Va. Code § 23–4–2(d)(2)(ii) may be brought against a non-employer “person,” such as a supervisor or co-employee...
Blog Post: Ohio: Intentional Tort Action Against Employer Fails
An Ohio appellate court has affirmed a trial court’s summary judgment decision in favor of an employer in an injured employee’s intentional tort claim, agreeing with the trial court that the employee failed to show the employer intended to cause the employee injury. The employee lost his...