Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Court remands injury claims for look into firms’ relationships

Reprints
ice road

A superior court must look deeper at the relationships among several Alaskan companies to determine whether any are entitled to the exclusive remedy provisions on a worker’s personal injury claims.

In James v. Alaska Frontier Constructors Inc., the Supreme Court of Alaska on Friday unanimously reversed and remanded the lower court’s decision in a case in which a worker sought to recover from two companies for injuries he suffered while being forced to work in a blizzard.

Andy James worked for Northern Construction & Maintenance LLC, which shared the same owners as Alaska Frontier Constructors Inc.

In late December 2014, Mr. James was sent to work on an ice road where the company Nanuq Inc. served as general contractor. He was ordered by Nanuq employee Scott Pleas to check fuel levels on some idling equipment despite the blizzard conditions and claims he was threatened with termination if he did not comply. As he climbed up on a large motor grader to fuel it, a gust of wind blew him down, and he suffered shoulder and spinal injuries in the fall. He received workers compensation benefits from Northern Construction.

He filed a personal injury lawsuit against Alaska Frontier and Nanuq for negligently and recklessly sending workers into dangerous conditions. A superior court granted summary judgment to the companies, and Mr. James appealed.

The Alaska Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s order. It noted that because Northern Construction paid Mr. James’ workers compensation claim, it was protected by the workers compensation act’s exclusive liability provision. But for the exclusive liability provision to preclude his claims against Nanuq and Alaska Frontier, the companies would have had to both contract with Northern Construction, or if they were not joint ventures, then they must have been vendors or subcontractors for statutory immunity, the court said.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to make these determinations. It held that the “evidentiary presentations” told it “nothing about the actual contractual arrangements” and that the superior court erred in speculating about the relationships existing among the companies.