Opinion ID: 874509
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Borrowed employee

Text: District 93 asserts that the trial court's order can be affirmed on the alternate ground that Cordova was a borrowed employee, and therefore, District 93 was her statutory employer. Cordova argues that the District Court properly decided there was an issue of fact as to whether Cordova was a borrowed employee. Here, the district court correctly concluded there was a genuine issue of material fact on the borrowed employee claim. A company is not subject to third party liability when it is the employer of a loaned employee. Lines v. Idaho Forest Indus., 125 Idaho 462, 464, 872 P.2d 725, 727 (1994). In Lines, we looked primarily at which employer had the right to control the employee and then examined whether there existed a contract for hire and whether the work done was essentially that of the special employer. Id. Important factors of control included whether there was exclusive supervision of the employee while on the job site, the right to terminate the worker, and whether the borrowing employer paid a fee to the loaning employer for the employee. Id. at 463, 872 P.2d at 726. In this case, it is unclear whether District 93 or District 91 had the right to control Cordova. Since summary judgment is improper when there is an issue of material fact, we decline to affirm on the alternate ground that Cordova was a borrowed employee.