Effect of providing coverage
- exclusive remedy
Source:
Section 656.018 — Effect of providing coverage; exclusive remedy, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors656.html.
Notes of Decisions
In general
If Workmen’s Compensation Board has rejected claim on ground that injury or disease is not covered by chapter, and decision has become final, exclusivity provisions do not bar common law tort action on claim. Hubbard v. Reynolds Metals Co., 482 F2d 63 (1973)
Common enterprise requires that employee and third party be working in accomplishment of same or related purpose at time of injury. Metcalf v. Case, 278 Or 629, 565 P2d 736 (1977)
Exclusive liability provision does not unreasonably interfere with freedom to contract under Article I, section 20 of Oregon Constitution, nor deny third party remedy in violation of Article I, section 10 of Oregon Constitution. Roberts v. Gray’s Crane & Rigging, 73 Or App 29, 697 P2d 985 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Exclusive liability provision does not violate federal equal protection or state privileges and immunities constitutional provisions. Rock v. Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co., 77 Or App 469, 713 P2d 673 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
Application of choice of laws provision to allow employer indemnity of third party was void as contrary to fundamental public policy. Young v. Mobil Oil Corp., 85 Or App 64, 735 P2d 654 (1987)
Exclusivity provision does not apply to prevent statutory claim for separate injury of discrimination. Palmer v. Bi-Mart Company, 92 Or App 470, 758 P2d 888 (1988); Seitz v. Albina Human Resources Center, 100 Or App 665, 788 P2d 1004 (1990)
Agreements to purchase liability insurance are independent contractual obligations that are not subject to prohibition against indemnity agreements. Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Tuality Community Hosp., 101 Or App 299, 790 P2d 1148 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Fellow employee is not exempt in capacity as legally separate entity causing harm. Perkins v. Gehlar, 107 Or App 158, 811 P2d 650 (1991)
Where third party did not qualify as employer through relationship to claimant, employer immunity was not available to third party based upon intercorporate relationship with claimant’s employer. Osborn v. Crane Equipment Manufacturing Corp., 135 Or App 176, 897 P2d 1192 (1995), Sup Ct review denied
Where employee held dual employment partly under same employer as injured person, employee immunity as coworker of injured person did not extend to unshared employer. Perry v. Express Services, Inc., 143 Or App 321, 923 P2d 673 (1996), Sup Ct review denied
Exclusivity of workers’ compensation liability does not apply if injury is not “arising out of and in the course of employment.” Krushwitz v. McDonald’s Restaurants, 323 Or 520, 919 P2d 465 (1996)
Where decedent would have been prevented from asserting claim, preventing bringing of derivative claim does not improperly deny remedy. Kilminster v. Day Management Corp., 323 Or 618, 919 P2d 474 (1996)
Coworker exemption from liability exists regardless of whether employer is complying employer. Van Drimmelen v. Berlin, 148 Or App 21, 939 P2d 59 (1997), Sup Ct review denied
Government employee receiving workers’ compensation benefits for injuries from motor vehicle accident is not barred from also collecting benefits under uninsured motorist coverage provided by employer under ORS 278.215. City of Salem v. Salisbury, 168 Or App 14, 5 P3d 1131 (2000), Sup Ct review denied
Good faith filing of workers’ compensation claim does not estop worker from asserting contrary position in later civil complaint. Day v. Advanced M&D Sales, Inc., 336 Or 511, 86 P3d 678 (2004)
Member-manager of limited liability company that employed plaintiff who was injured while at work is not exempt from liability under this section, even where member-manager functions in manner similar to officer or director. Cortez v. Nacco Material Handling Group, 356 Or 254, 337 P3d 111 (2014)
Exceptions from tort immunity
Removal of safety switch is not act of “willful and unprovoked aggression.” Chung v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 276 Or 809, 556 P2d 683 (1976)
For purposes of determining whether action was “willful and unprovoked aggression,” provocation means incitement to action, not act providing legal justification. Virgil v. Walker, 280 Or 607, 572 P2d 314 (1977)
Person contracting with complying employer for services does not become immune from suit by employee. Martelli v. R.A. Chambers and Associates, 310 Or 529, 800 P2d 766 (1990)
Exemption from liability for complying employer is available to predecessor complying employer of injured person for alleged negligence that occurred during former ownership of business. Fields v. Jantec, Inc., 317 Or 432, 857 P2d 95 (1993)
Disputed claim settlement disposing of all claims raised or raisable relating to workers’ compensation claim did not preclude action against company officer for intentional tort. Terris v. Stodd, 126 Or App 666, 870 P2d 835 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Claims for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress are not excluded by availability of workers’ compensation remedy. McMellon v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Or. 1996)
Wrongful discharge is separate injury from compensable injury, notwithstanding possible reliance on same facts. McMellon v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Or. 1996)
Where defendants personally own land and lease land to defendants’ corporation of which defendants are president and chief operating executive, defendants are individually immune from liability for death of corporation employee because defendants’ actions and omissions that may have contributed to death are inextricably intertwined with defendants’ roles as officers and directors, not wholly outside defendants’ immune capacity. Nancy Doty, Inc. v. WildCat Haven, Inc., 297 Or App 95, 439 P3d 1018 (2019)
Up to date