Civil - employer intentional tort - loaned servant
An exclusion for "intentional wrongs" in an employer's liability policy doesn't preclude coverage of an employee's intentional tort claim in which he alleged his injuries were "substantially certain" to occur because of the employer's removal of safety guards, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled. On his first day of work, an employee had eight fingers amputated unexpectedly while operating a large press brake machine. He filed for workers' compensation and brought a state law claim against his employer. To avoid workers' comp preemption, he alleged an intentional tort had occurred because the employer removed safety guards and warnings on the machine and those actions created a "substantial certainty" that he would be injured.
Finding a plaintiff can bring an action for intentional tort against a co-worker who placed a video camera in the locker room, even though she received workers' compensation benefits based on the incident, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and reinstated the plaintiff's claim. In Denise Hanford v. Plaza Packaging Corp., et al., the plaintiff charged a co-worker with violations of the New York Human Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, discrimination and sexual harassment in a prima facie tort. The plaintiff ultimately received workers' compensation benefits from the incident in question and as a result the New York State Supreme Court dismissed her action against the co-worker on the basis of the exclusivity portions o...
The trial court did not err in dismissing an intentional tort claim against the employer. Intentional tort claims against an employer must be stated with particularity. The allegations in the complaint, taken as true, do not establish that the employer acted with deliberate intent to cause an injury to the employee. Affirmed. (Froelich, J., dissenting).
Stop-gap endorsement to commercial liability insurance policy Substantial-certainty intentional tort Language in a commercial liability insurance policy stating that insurance does not apply to bodily injury resulting from an act that is determined to have been committed by an insured with the belief that an injury is substantially certain to occur does not require a final determination by a fact-finder before the insurer can refuse to defend a claim alleging a substantial-certainty employer intentional tort.
An employee needn't prove that his employer had concealed a dangerous condition from him in order to sue under the intentional tort exception to workers' compensation immunity, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled. A department store employee suffered an ankle injury after falling from a decrepit and undersized ladder that had been complained about many times before. The employee received workers' compensation benefits but later sued, claiming the employer had committed an intentional tort.
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Louisiana Rep | 22 cfr 62 40 | Healthworld Communications Group | Union Cabinet | Via Triumphalis | teologia moral | Montvalezan | Resolución del Consejo de la Unión Europea | giuramento decisorio | Renta de la explotación agraria
