Opinion ID: 2570792
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: NIIA immunity

Text: GES argues that it is immune from liability under the NIIA and that the district court erred in refusing to grant it summary judgment. An order denying summary judgment is not independently appealable; [5] however, we may review the propriety of the district court's summary judgment ruling because GES has properly raised the issue in its appeal from the final judgment. [6] Our review is de novo and without deference to the district court's findings. [7] Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no material issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [8] Under the NIIA, workers' compensation is an employee's only remedy against his employer and co-employees for an industrial injury; however, the injured worker may pursue a common law tort action against any tortfeasor who is not his statutory employer or co-employee. [9] To determine whether GES and Corbitt had a statutory employment relationship under the NIIA, so that GES is immune from the Corbitts' negligence suit, we apply the normal work test originally articulated in Meers v. Haughton Elevator [10] and now codified as NRS 616B.603(1)(b). [11] The normal work test is used in non-construction cases and in construction cases when the defendant is not a principal contractor [12] licensed under NRS chapter 624 or is not working pursuant to a construction agreement with such a licensed principal contractor. [13] Here, the exhibit booth and the lighting truss structure were displays, requiring assembly, not construction. In addition, although GES was licensed under NRS chapter 624, GES was not a principal contractor and GES's work at the Powerline/VIP booth was not performed pursuant to a construction agreement with a licensed principal contractor or within the scope of its specialty contractor's license. Under the normal work test, GES is immune from suit under the NIIA only if it was in the same trade, business, profession or occupation as Legends, Mr. Corbitt's employer. [14] According to the record before us, GES and Legends were in different trades entirely, with GES supplying electricity, hauling and assembly services to convention exhibitors, and Legends providing live stage entertainment involving music and custom lighting for exhibitors. Mr. Corbitt worked for Legends as a lighting designer and programmer. Thus, because GES was not entitled to NIIA immunity under the normal work test analysis, the district court did not err by denying GES's motion for summary judgment.