Opinion ID: 2464236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Liability of Tel-Elec

Text: As has been said, Tel-Elec sought to show that the workers' compensation statutes relieved it of liability to the plaintiff. The trial court held to the contrary, finding that Tel-Elec was jointly liable with Gascosage on the basis of Boswell v. May Centers, Inc., 669 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App. 1984). We now conclude that the summary judgment against Tel-Elec was improvidently entered and that there are issues requiring a trial. Although the plaintiff has assumed the burden of briefing the point, our disposition is such that the question of Tel-Elec's liability is now of interest only to the two defendants. Tel-Elec argues that its undisputed showing in support of the motion for summary judgment demonstrates that it was engaged in a joint venture with Eazy, and that a joint venturer is entitled to the protection of the workers' compensation laws, § 287.120, RSMo 1986, when a tort claim is made against it by an employee of its co-venturer. It falls back on the argument that its defense presents genuine issues of fact, so that the court erred in sustaining the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It is agreed that the plaintiff was an employee of Eazy and not of Tel-Elec when he was injured. There was no showing of a written assignment or subcontract. Apparently Tel-Elec got the bid and Eazy proceeded to do the work. The affidavit of Earnest Hubnik, principal officer of both corporations, to which plaintiff filed no counter-affidavit, stated, among other things, the following: Tel-Elec was incorporated in Texas in 1978, under the name of Tel-Elect Company. The name of Tel-Elect Company was changed to Tel-Elec Company in 1979. Eazy was incorporated in Texas in 1979. At all relevant times Tel-Elec and Eazy shared common officers, directors and shareholders, and performed power line construction work. The standard practice had been for Tel-Elec to make bids on its own behalf and on behalf of Eazy for certain projects having Eazy on the list of approved bidders. This practice was followed on the Iberia Rephase where the intention was for Eazy and Tel-Elec to perform all of the work on the project as partners in a joint venture. The affidavit also stated: With regard to the Iberia Rephase, Tel-Elec and Eazy shared a common group of employees and also shared equipment, resources, materials, funding, tools, payrolls, independent contractors, outside consultants, hiring and firing policies, project management and control, workers' compensation insurance coverage, banks, accounts payable, accounts receivable, profits and losses, employee handbooks and training manuals, and numerous other assets and resources. Work on the Iberia Rephase was performed by a group of employees common to Tel-Elec and Eazy. Employees were paid by checks issued on the accounts of Tel-Elec and Eazy, and Tel-Elec and Eazy considered themselves as one joint venture enterprise for all purposes involved in the performance of the Gascosage contract. The affidavit continued: No contract or subcontract existed between Tel-Elec and Eazy involving the Iberia Rephase. At no time did either company delegate to the other any responsibility for any performance under the Gascosage contract. At no time did either company assign to the other any rights under the Gascosage contract. Neither company paid the other for any rights, responsibilities, privileges, or liabilities under the Gascosage contract. Tel-Elec did not pay Eazy and Eazy did not pay Tel-Elec for use of the other's employees, equipment, tools, supplies, liability or workers' compensation insurance during the performance of the Iberia Rephase. Management decisions for Tel-Elec and Eazy regarding the use of equipment, employment of personnel, and assignment of work crews to the Iberia Rephase were made as joint decisions by essentially the same persons. During the Iberia Rephase Tel-Elec and Eazy were covered by a workers' compensation insurance policy issued by the same insurance carrier. Tel-Elec's arguments must be considered against a background of principles which have been enunciated in Missouri cases and which the trial court should have in mind in resolving the factual and legal issues on remand. Any rights which the plaintiff might have had at common law are supplanted and superseded by the workers' compensation act, if it applies. Whether or not the case comes within the provision of the act is a question of fact. Jones v. Jay Truck Driver Training Center, 709 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Mo. banc 1986). An injured plaintiff may file an action at common law. The defendant may assert by motion or answer that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter because plaintiff was an employee when injured. Rule 55.27. The court may hear the matter in the manner permitted in Rule 55.28. If the court finds jurisdiction the parties may proceed to trial. If it finds no jurisdiction, the plaintiff may appeal. Jones, 709 S.W.2d at 116[1, 2]. Inasmuch as the workers' compensation proceeding had concluded before the jury trial was held, we do not have to decide whether any principle of prior resort to administrative remedies applies. A final workers' compensation award determines the rights of the parties as effectually as a judgment. The award may be set aside or questioned only through the statutory review procedures. State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. Missouri Workmen's Compensation Comm'n, 320 Mo. 893, 8 S.W.2d 897, 900[8] (1928). An injured employee who has accepted benefits paid by his employer in compliance with the compensation act cannot maintain a tort action against his employer. This is so even though plaintiff had filed no compensation claim and the employer was neither insured nor qualified as a self-insurer under the compensation act. Plaintiff's retention of the compensation benefits constitutes an election precluding the maintenance of the inconsistent tort action. Neff v. Baiotto Coal Co., 361 Mo. 304, 234 S.W.2d 578 (1950). An award of the Industrial Commission may be res judicata in a subsequent tort action between the parties. Hines v. Continental Baking Co., 334 S.W.2d 140, 141[1] (Mo.App.1960). The employer-defendant has the burden of establishing the bar of the Workers' Compensation Act as an affirmative defense. Id. at 142-143. See also Green v. Crunden Martin Mfg. Co., 575 S.W.2d 930, 932[3] (Mo.App.1978). An unappealed final award of the Industrial Commission under the Workers' Compensation Act, whether right or wrong on a fact issue within the jurisdiction of the commission, is as effective an adjudication of the rights of the parties as a judgment of a court and is impregnable to collateral attack. Scannell v. Fulton Iron Works Co., 365 Mo. 889, 289 S.W.2d 122, 124 (1956). Collateral estoppel precludes the reexamination of previously litigated issues of fact or law, even if the prior judgment was erroneous. Sunshine Realty Corp. v. Killian, 702 S.W.2d 95, 99[2, 3] (Mo.App. 1985). Judgments, including judgments by agreement, are conclusive of matters adjudicated and are not subject to collateral attack except upon jurisdictional grounds. Moore v. Beck, 664 S.W.2d 15, 18 (Mo.App. 1984). A joint venture is a species of partnership and is governed by the same legal rules. Both partnerships and joint ventures may be created informally. [9] A joint venture is said to differ from a partnership in that it is usually limited in scope. Anderson v. Steurer, 391 S.W.2d 839, 843[4] (Mo.1965). There a plaintiff brought a tort action against defendant Steurer. He had previously received workers' compensation benefits from his employer Stroup. If Stroup and Steurer were engaged in a joint venture, the plaintiff in legal effect was an employee of both and could not maintain the tort action against Steurer as a negligent third person. Liability would be under the Workers' Compensation Act exclusively. Id. at 843. See also Rhodes v. Rogers, 675 S.W.2d 107, 109 (Mo.App.1984), holding that a partnership employee who has received workers' compensation benefits may not maintain a negligence action against one of the partners on account of on-the-job injury; and Bailey v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 411 S.W.2d 178, 181 (Mo.1967), holding that an employee of a subcontractor may not receive common law damages from a principal contractor, for injuries covered by workers' compensation. Plaintiff argues that, even if Tel-Elec and Eazy were engaged in a joint venture, a related corporation cannot avail itself of a sister corporation's workers' compensation immunity, citing Boswell v. May Centers, Inc., 669 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App.1984). There the plaintiff was an employee of May Department Stores, Inc., and he had filed and settled a workers' compensation claim against his employer. Centers filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the compensation claim was plaintiff's exclusive remedy. Centers was a wholly owned subsidiary of May. The trial court sustained Centers' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed. The most obvious distinction between Boswell and the case at bar is that in Boswell the compensation claim was made against May and the tort action was brought against Centers. Here it may be argued that both the compensation claim and the instant tort action were brought against Tel-Elec. There was no claim in Boswell that Centers and May were joint venturers or that plaintiff was injured during the course of a joint venture. May ran a department store and Centers operated a parking lot. The duty of maintaining the later was solely that of [Centers]. Portions of the Hubnik affidavit indicate that such may not be the case here. The nature of the business conducted by May and by Centers was distinct and unrelated. According to the affidavit, neither Tel-Elec nor Eazy was the wholly owned subsidiary of the other. The manner in which Eazy and Tel-Elec operated, specifically on the Iberia Rephase, may have been one of total integration. So Boswell is not necessarily in point. There may be unintended consequences when people make informal use of the corporate forms or enter into contractual relationships without defining their arrangements with precision, but subcontracting arrangements are common, and there is nothing illegal or sinister about a joint venture. There is nothing in the instant, admittedly limited, record which demonstrates any policy reason why Tel-Elec and Eazy should not enjoy such immunity from tort liability as is appropriate to their legal arrangement, as it may further be defined by the circuit court. The plaintiff argues that there is no evidence that Tel-Electric, d/b/a Eazy Construction Co., is the same entity as the defendant Tel-Elec Company. In Anderson v. Steurer , the tort defendant was held to be entitled to immunity even though the compensation had been paid by the other joint venturer. The misnomer of a defendant in the first action does not prevent the judgment in that action from barring a second action between the same parties on the same claim. Youngblood v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 239 Mich. 136, 214 N.W. 154, 155[2] (1927); 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 768, p. 298, n. 71. In Youngblood the court said: Simply because the misnomer was waived by defendant, it does not follow that plaintiff can take advantage of his own error. The former judgment must be held to be res judicata of the present case. Hubnik's affidavit shows that there is evidence from which the trial court could find that there was a joint venture between Eazy and Tel-Elec. A subcontracting arrangement might also be found. There is, additionally, evidence to support a finding that the plaintiff accepted workers' compensation benefits from Tel-Elec, confirmed by a final order of the Commission. It would be of interest to know whether the workers' compensation liability of Tel-Elec and Eazy was covered by the same policy and how they reported their income on federal and state tax returns. But we are unable to hold on the record before us that the trial court erred in denying Tel-Elec's motion for summary judgment. Its brief concedes that this Court might properly feel that the materials before it, including the Hubnik affidavit, may contain too many gaps and conclusions to allow us to determine the issue without trial. Remand is appropriate to determine whether Tel-Elec and Eazy were engaged in a joint venture, whether Eazy was a subcontractor of Tel-Elec, and whether the plaintiff accepted workers' compensation benefits from Tel-Elec. Any of these findings would preclude common law liability.