Opinion ID: 1783782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether worker's compensation laws provide this injured party his exclusive remedy.

Text: The exclusivity provision of the Mississippi's Worker's Compensation Act is found at 71-3-9 of the Mississippi Code Annotated: The liability of an employer to pay compensation shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee, his legal representative, husband or wife, parent, dependents, next-of-kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages at common law or otherwise from such employer on account of such injury or death, except that if an employer fails to secure payment of compensation as required by this chapter, an injured employee, or his legal representative in case death results from the injury, may elect to claim compensation under this chapter, or to maintain an action at law for damages on account of such injury or death. In such action the defendant may not plead as a defense that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant, nor that the employee assumed the risk of his employment, nor that the injury was due to the contributory negligence of the employee. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-9. The existence of a contract for indemnity, however, changes the applicability of the exclusiveness statute. Although this court has not ruled specifically in this area, the aforementioned federal Lorenzen case addresses this issue: The existence of the express indemnity agreement between Clearview and South Central Bell takes this case outside the prohibition of § 71-3-9, Mississippi Code of 1972, Annotated and brings this case within the majority rule recognized in Anno., 100 ALR.3rd 356; and Ball v. Oregon Erecting Co., 273 Or. 179, 539 P.2d 1059, 1061-63 (1975), that workmen's compensation acts do not bar a claim for indemnity by the third-party from the employer when that claim is based on an express contract of indemnity. Lorenzen, 546 F. Supp. at 696. The Mississippi Worker's Compensation Act is intended to benefit employees and guarantee that they will be remunerated if injured during the course of employment. Mississippi Code Annotated § 71-3-1 reads in part: Citation and Purpose. This chapter shall be known and cited as Worker's Compensation Law, and shall be administered by the workers' compensation commission, hereinafter referred to as the commission, cooperating with other state and federal authorities for the prevention of injuries and occupational diseases to workers and, in event of injury or occupational disease, their rehabilitation or restoration to health and vocational opportunity... . Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-1. The enforcing of a freely entered into indemnity clause in no way impugns the beneficent purposes of the statute. Although such an agreement may alter who ultimately pays when an employee is injured, the employee will still be compensated. Because of this, the 1967 indemnity clause can fairly be said in this case to void the effects of the worker's compensation exclusivity statute and to allow a claim for indemnification. After reviewing the record before us in the light most favorable for the non-movant Heritage Cablevision, it is clear that the movant New Albany Electric is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of the validity and applicability of the indemnity clause. Although Heritage was not one of the makers of the 1967 licensing agreement which contains the indemnity clause, it is now bound by that agreement under principles of equity and equitable estoppel and by its own admission that the agreement contains its duties and obligations to New Albany Electric. Furthermore, Miss. Code Ann. § 31-5-41 does not prevent the enforcement of this clause as § 31-5-41 applies only to construction contracts and the 1967 contract here being considered is a licensing agreement. In addition, a reading of the plain language of the indemnity clause shows that it is meant to cover an accident such as the one which befell Biffle. Moreover, no ambiguity exists which would allow this court to look beyond the contract's plain words to examine parol evidence. Finally, as the freely entered into indemnification clause takes this case outside of the workers' compensation exclusivity statute, the workers' compensation act will not bar a claim for indemnity under the indemnification clause. The summary judgment for New Albany Electric and denying summary judgment for Heritage Cablevision is affirmed. AFFIRMED. DAN M. LEE and PRATHER, P.JJ., and SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS, McRAE, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ., concur.