Opinion ID: 767146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kentucky Workers' Compensation and Immunity from Common Law Tort

Text: 21 Analysis of Budd's motion for summary judgment depends on the meaning of two provisions of the Kentucky Workers' Compensation law. SeeKy. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 342.610(2)(b) and 342.690(1) (Banks-Baldwin 1997). Section 342.610(2)(b) defines contractor as a person who contracts with another ... [t]o have work performed of a kind which is a regular or recurrent part of the work of the trade, business, occupation, or profession of such person. Section 342.690(1) provides in relevant part: If an employer secures payment of compensation as required by this chapter, the liability of such employer under this chapter shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee ... and anyone otherwise entitled to recover damages from such employer at law or in admiralty on account of such injury or death. For purposes of this section, the term employer shall include a contractor covered by subsection (2) of KRS 342.610, whether or not the subcontractor has in fact, secured the payment of compensation. 22 Kentucky law, thus, makes clear that if Budd is a contractor then it has no liability in tort to Thompson, an employee who has received compensation through Budd's subcontractor. See United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Technical Minerals, Inc., 934 S.W.2d 266, 267 (Ky. 1996); Daniels v. Louisville Gas and Elec. Co., 933 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996). Under this regime, Budd's claim raises one basic issue: whether Budd is a contractor 1 . Budd qualifies as a contractor if it contracted to have Merrick perform[] work of a kind that is a regular or recurrent part of the work of the trade, business, occupation or profession of such person. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.610(2)(b). No one disputes that HVAC maintenance was regular or recurring; the disagreement centers around whether such maintenance qualifies as part of Budd's work of the trade, business, occupation or profession. See id. 23 Although Kentucky cases have not mapped precisely the contours of section 342.610, they do provide useful guidance to the meaning of regular or recurrent part of the work of the trade, business, occupation or profession. Kentucky case law is clear that activities beyond one's primary business objective may qualify under section 342.610. For example, rough carpentry is a regular or recurrent part of the work of the building construction business, even if the contractor never performed rough carpentry with its own employees. SeeFireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sherman & Fletcher, 705 S.W.2d 459, 462 (Ky. 1986). Additionally, emissions testing required by the EPA constitutes a regular or recurring part of a coal fired electric plant's business. See Daniels v. Louisville Gas and Elec. Co., 933 S.W.2d 821, 824 (Ky. Ct. App. 1996). The Danielscourt implied that the mandatory nature of the testing sufficed to establish the necessary connection to the company's business. Id. 24 The Sixth Circuit also has had several opportunities to consider the relationship between the alleged contractor's business and the employee's actions. See, e.g., Granus v. North Am. Philips Lighting Corp., 821 F.2d 1253 (6th Cir. 1987). The plaintiff in Granus was injured after falling at the defendant's manufacturing plant. Seeid. at 1254. Plaintiff was engaged in a project to refurbish and upgrade a glass-melting installation, or 'tank' at the plant. Id. at 1254-55. Specifically, the plaintiff operated the saw which cut the firebricks that were used to line the furnace. See id. at 1255. The court held that [t]he evidence established that furnaces at glass factories are rebricked periodically as a matter of maintenance routine. Id. The Court concluded, The relining of furnaces, required periodically as a matter of regular maintenance, is .. a 'recurrent' part of the manufacturing business in which defendant ... is engaged. Id. at 1258. 25 Given this case law, part of ... the business of such person incorporates more than the primary task of Budd's company. Its business of stamping automotive parts, therefore, may include more than the actual assembly line production of auto parts. As Granus and Daniels indicate, respectively, section 342.610 encompasses regular maintenance of manufacturer's physical plant as well as activities required to conform with applicable governmental regulations. It is undisputed that changing the air conditioning filters was a regular element of Budd's plant maintenance. Although, perhaps, more remotely related to the stamping of auto parts than the lining of furnaces is to glass production, Budd's HVAC system plays an important role in its manufacturing process. Budd points to the winter 1995 temporary shutdown of one of its production lines due to an improperly functioning HVAC system. Thompson neither disputes nor offers an alternative explanation for this shutdown; the general proffer of statements that the HVAC system primarily serves climate control for the comfort of Budd employees simply fails to raise a triable issue of fact. Budd's claim that the Kentucky Building Code required a properly functioning HVAC system also supports the conclusion that Thompson's activities for Budd on the day of his injuries fall within section 342.610. See Daniels, 933 S.W.2d 821. Thus, the district court properly concluded that, for purposes of Kentucky Workers' Compensation, Budd is a contractor and cannot be held liable in tort for Thompson's injuries. 26