Court Opinion

ID: 9491294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:09:40.831119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:38.506074
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the court, and write separately only to address a distinction which the parties failed to discern. Lincoln argues that Edwards could not have been an agent because he was an independent contractor. This, however, is a false dichotomy. An agent can be either an independent contractor or an employee. See, Restatement (Second) of Agency § 14N. For example, the attorney-client relationship is an agent-principal relationship and yet attorneys are also independent contractors. See 41 Am.Jur.2d Independent Contractors § 2. The ability of independent contractors to be agents is beyond dispute. The parties’ confusion seems to stem from the occasional tendency of courts to use “agent” as a colloquial synonym for “employee” when distinguishing between an employee and an independent contractor. See, e.g., Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse,Inc., 244 Neb. 449, 507 N.W.2d 631, 636 (1993).
In this case, we are not concerned with whether Edwards was Lincoln’s employee or an independent contractor. We are concerned with whether Edwards was Lincoln’s agent, because only agency will toll the statute of limitations. Under Nebraska law, one is an agent if he or she acts: (1) for the benefit of another and (2) subject to that other’s control. See, e.g., Andrews v. Schram, 252 Neb. 298, 562 N.W.2d 50, 54 (1997). Edwards meets both prongs of this test. Therefore, the court correctly holds that the resulting agency relationship served to toll the statute of limitations, and I concur.