Opinion ID: 1781291
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immunity of Tanda.

Text: Finally, Cherry alleges that pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 23-79-210 (Repl. 1992), it may directly sue Transcontinental because the exclusive remedy provision found at Ark.Code Ann. § 11-9-105 (Supp.1995) makes Tanda immune from tort liability. As with Cherry's other points on appeal, this argument has no merit. In Helms v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins., 281 Ark. 450, 664 S.W.2d 870 (1984), this court said that: other statutes must yield to the Workers' Compensation Act because it is in the interest of the public policy to give that act priority as an exclusive remedy. Thus, in Helms this court held that the exclusive remedy prevented injured teachers from recovering under the school district's automobile insurance agreement which it was required by statute to maintain as an exception to the immunity doctrine. Moreover, in Burkett v. PPG Indus. Inc., 294 Ark. 50, 740 S.W.2d 621 (1987), this court specifically held that the exclusive remedy provision also applied to insulate the employer's insurance carrier from tort liability. Hence, under these two decisions, Cherry may not maintain a direct action against Transcontinental as Tanda's insurance carrier. Affirmed.