James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc.

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Christopher Dodd

 

James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc.

In James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc., 468 P.3d 711 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that there was insufficient evidence to determine corporate relationships between three companies, and it was therefore inappropriate to grant summary judgement based on immunity under the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive liability provision. (Id. at 714). James was injured while working on an ice road construction project for Northern Construction. (Id. at 715). James had been instructed to work at the direction of Pleas, who ordered him to conduct work in dangerous blizzard conditions. (Id. at 715). James received workers’ compensation benefits from Northern Construction for the injury, and sued Nunuq and Alaska Frontier for his personal injuries, alleging that Pleas was an employee of either Nunuq or of Nunuq and Alaska Frontier operating as a joint venture. (Id. at 715). Nunuq and Alaska Frontier argued that, while no written contract existed, they were joint venturers and thus immune from personal injury liability under Alaska’s Workers Compensation Act (AS 23.30.055), which is generally an employees’ exclusive remedy against an employer or parties with a contractual relationship with the employer. (Id. at 715-18). The superior court granted summary judgement for Alaska Frontier and Nanuq, finding that (1) Alaska Frontier was immune since either Alaska Frontier and Northern Construction were a joint venture due to joint ownership, or Northern Construction was a subcontractor of Alaska Frontier, and (2) Nanuq was immune since Nanuq sub-contracted with Alaska Frontier, Alaska Frontier billed Nanuq for both Alaska Frontier’s and Northern Construction’s work, Northern Construction had a “casual temporary labor agreement relationship” with Alaska Frontier, and James was an employee of either Northern Construction or Alaska Frontier. (Id. at 716). The supreme court reversed, holding that that there was insufficient evidence to determine the corporate relationships between three companies, reasoning that joint ownership was not dispositive proof that a joint venture existed between Alaska Frontier and Northern Construction. (Id. at 719). The court further reasoned that because no evidence was presented that James was a general or special employee of Alaska Frontier, the superior court erred in concluding that James could have been an Alaska Frontier employee (Id. at 719). Lastly, the court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether Alaska Frontier was actually a subcontractor or a vendor of Nanuq, and therefore it was impossible to determine what portion of Alaska Frontier’s supposed subcontract could have been sub-subcontracted to Northern Construction. (Id. at 721). The supreme court overturned the lower court’s grant of summary judgement, holding that there was insufficient evidence to determine corporate relationships between three companies, and it was therefore inappropriate to grant summary judgement based on immunity under the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive liability provision. (Id. at 714).

James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc.

EMPLOYMENT LAW

Christopher Dodd

 

James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc.

In James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors, Inc., 468 P.3d 711 (Alaska 2020), the supreme court held that there was insufficient evidence to determine corporate relationships between three companies, and it was therefore inappropriate to grant summary judgement based on immunity under the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive liability provision. (Id. at 714). James was injured while working on an ice road construction project for Northern Construction. (Id. at 715). James had been instructed to work at the direction of Pleas, who ordered him to conduct work in dangerous blizzard conditions. (Id. at 715). James received workers’ compensation benefits from Northern Construction for the injury, and sued Nunuq and Alaska Frontier for his personal injuries, alleging that Pleas was an employee of either Nunuq or of Nunuq and Alaska Frontier operating as a joint venture. (Id. at 715). Nunuq and Alaska Frontier argued that, while no written contract existed, they were joint venturers and thus immune from personal injury liability under Alaska’s Workers Compensation Act (AS 23.30.055), which is generally an employees’ exclusive remedy against an employer or parties with a contractual relationship with the employer. (Id. at 715-18). The superior court granted summary judgement for Alaska Frontier and Nanuq, finding that (1) Alaska Frontier was immune since either Alaska Frontier and Northern Construction were a joint venture due to joint ownership, or Northern Construction was a subcontractor of Alaska Frontier, and (2) Nanuq was immune since Nanuq sub-contracted with Alaska Frontier, Alaska Frontier billed Nanuq for both Alaska Frontier’s and Northern Construction’s work, Northern Construction had a “casual temporary labor agreement relationship” with Alaska Frontier, and James was an employee of either Northern Construction or Alaska Frontier. (Id. at 716). The supreme court reversed, holding that that there was insufficient evidence to determine the corporate relationships between three companies, reasoning that joint ownership was not dispositive proof that a joint venture existed between Alaska Frontier and Northern Construction. (Id. at 719). The court further reasoned that because no evidence was presented that James was a general or special employee of Alaska Frontier, the superior court erred in concluding that James could have been an Alaska Frontier employee (Id. at 719). Lastly, the court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether Alaska Frontier was actually a subcontractor or a vendor of Nanuq, and therefore it was impossible to determine what portion of Alaska Frontier’s supposed subcontract could have been sub-subcontracted to Northern Construction. (Id. at 721). The supreme court overturned the lower court’s grant of summary judgement, holding that there was insufficient evidence to determine corporate relationships between three companies, and it was therefore inappropriate to grant summary judgement based on immunity under the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive liability provision. (Id. at 714).