descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Kenneth D. Hardman and Michelle Hardman v. Specialty Services, a Washington Corporation Ike Lobato, Dba Specialty Services, Shea-Kiewit-Kenny, a Joint Venture of J.F. Shea Co., Inc., a Nevada Corporation Kiewit Construction Company, a Delaware Corporation, Both in Their Capacities as Individual Entities, and as Participants in the Above Joint Venture and Kenny Construction Company, an Illinois Corporation Both in Their Capacities as Individual Entities, and as Participants in the Above Joint Venture, Defendants-Third-Party-Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Mountain States Steel, Inc., a Utah Corporation, Third-Party

Citation: 177 F.3d 921Docket: 97-4116

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; May 14, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves a tort lawsuit filed by Kenneth D. Hardman and Michelle Hardman against Shea-Kiewit-Kenny (SKK) after Kenneth suffered injuries while working on a project for SKK, alleging negligence and other claims. The district court granted summary judgment to SKK, concluding it was Hardman's special employer and therefore immune under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act. The Hardmans appealed, challenging SKK's status as a special employer under the loaned-employee doctrine. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo, focusing on the doctrine's three-prong test, particularly the necessity of a contract of hire with the special employer. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding Hardman's consent to an employment relationship with SKK, notably concerning his awareness and acceptance of SKK's control, which precluded summary judgment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of clear employment relationships and the conditions under which workers' compensation immunity applies to special employers.

Legal Issues Addressed

Contract of Hire Requirement in Loaned-Employee Doctrine

Application: The court focused on whether Hardman had entered into a contract of hire with SKK, either expressly or impliedly, as part of the loaned-employee doctrine's requirements.

Reasoning: A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the first prong of the loaned-employee doctrine, specifically concerning the contract of hire.

Loaned-Employee Doctrine under Utah Law

Application: The court examined whether SKK qualified as a special employer under the loaned-employee doctrine and concluded that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding Hardman's consent to an employment relationship with SKK.

Reasoning: A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the first prong of the loaned-employee doctrine, specifically concerning the contract of hire.

Summary Judgment Standards

Application: The appellate court reviewed the district court's summary judgment decision de novo, focusing on whether there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the loaned-employee doctrine.

Reasoning: In reviewing the summary judgment de novo, the court noted that summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issue of material fact exists, viewed in favor of the nonmoving party.

Workers' Compensation Immunity

Application: SKK claimed immunity from tort liability under the Utah Workers' Compensation Act by asserting its status as a special employer, but the appellate court found unresolved factual issues regarding this status.

Reasoning: The district court granted summary judgment to SKK, determining it was Hardman's special employer, thereby granting it immunity under the Act's exclusive remedy provision.