• Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
Jeremy W. RichterJeremy W. Richter
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now

Surviving a Miller Saw and a Motion to Dismiss

Ex parte Austal USA, LLC

Surviving a Miller Saw and a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

Surviving a Miller Saw and a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

May 15, 2017 Posted by Jeremy W. Richter Rules of Civil Procedure, Workers' Compensation

Ex parte Austal USA, LLC considers the narrow exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the standard for a plaintiff to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Allegations of Intent-to-Injure

Austal USA operates a shipyard in Mobile, Alabama that builds naval vessels. The plaintiffs are employees of Austal, each of whom was injured during his employment with Austal when using a Miller saw. In their third amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged intentional misconduct against Austal, alleging Austal had provided the plaintiffs with a “dangerous and defective Miller saw with the specific intent that it would cause injury to Plaintiffs.”

Austel’s Immunity Defense and Motion to Dismiss

Austal moved to dismiss the claim under Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing it was immune from the intentional misconduct claim via the exclusivity provisions of the Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., “the LHWCA”) and the Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act (Alabama Code § 25-5-1, et seq.). The trial court denied Austal’s motion to dismiss the intentional misconduct count.

The plaintiffs later filed a fourth amended complaint, restating the intentional misconduct claim, and adding five more claims that alleged various intentional and/or fraudulent acts or omissions against Austal. Austal moved the court to dismiss the newly alleged claims, as well as the intentional misconduct claim first stated in the third amended complaint. Its grounds for dismissal remained the exclusivity provisions of the LHWCA and Alabama Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court likewise denied this motion to dismiss. Austal petitioned the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals for a writ of mandamus. Ex parte Austal USA, LLC [Ms. 1151138 Mar. 3, 2017), ___ So.3d ___ (Ala. 2017).

On appeal, Austal argued that because the plaintiffs were injured in the line and scope of their employment with Austal, it enjoyed immunity from the tort claims resulting from the exclusivity provision of the LHWCA. The Alabama Supreme Court has previously described the provisions as follows:

“‘The LHWCA, at 33 U.S.C. § 905, precludes a personal injury action against any employer who complies with the LHWCA. Just as Ala. Code 1975, § 25-5-53, provides that workers’ compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy for injuries received in a work-related accident, the LHWCA provides, in 33 U.S.C. § 905(a), that an injured worker may not maintain a tort action against his employer for any negligence of the employer giving rise to the injury; the injured worker’s exclusive remedy is under the LHWCA.” Rodriguez-Flores v. U.S. Coatings, Inc., 133 So.3d 874, 880-81 (Ala. 2013).

Rodriguez-Flores recognized an “exceedingly narrow” exception in the exclusivity provision of the LHWCA for occasions in which the employer has committed an intentional tort. 133 So.3d at 881-82. The exception requires that the employer had a specific intent or desire that the injury occurred. Id.

Austal further argued that, on the whole, each plaintiff suffered accidental injury when a tool supplied to each by Austal to perform his/her work kicked back and made contact with their bodies. However, the plaintiffs specifically allege that Austal intended to cause them injury. Austal argues that these assertions by the plaintiffs are conclusory in nature and made only to invoke the narrowly-tailored intent-to-injure exception to the LHWCA exclusivity provision.

Even a Skeptical Court Must Assume the Allegations Are True

While the Alabama Supreme Court was skeptical of the plaintiffs’ claims and noted that the alleged intent-to-injure was inconsistent with the cost-saving motivation, the court held that for purposes of considering whether the complaint is sufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss, the court must take the allegations of the complaint as true. Ussery v. Terry, 201 So.3d 544, 546 (Ala. 2016). The test is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but rather, whether he may possibly prevail. Daniel v. Moye [Ms. 1140819, No. 10, 2016], ___ So.3d ___ (Ala. 2016); Newman v. Savas, 878 So.2d 1147, 1149 (Ala. 2003). A dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is only appropriate “when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” Knox v. Western World Ins. Co., 893 So.2d 321, 322 (Ala. 2004) (quoting Nance v. Matthews, 622 So.2d 297, 299 (Ala. 1993)).

In light of the above caselaw, the Alabama Supreme Court could not deny there was some possibility the plaintiffs’ accusations were true. Austal had not shown a clear legal right to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, and its petitions were denied.


Photo by James Willamor.

Do your best work. Be your best self.

Get the first three chapters of Level Up Your Law Practice so you can have a successful and sustainable law practice that meets your needs through self-assessment, having a vision for yourself and your practice, and client relationships that are built on trust.

Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)

Related

You also might be interested in

When TTD Benefits are Owed and in What Amount
Photo by Raymond Clarke. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mig/215734195/in/photolist-k4Gg6-62S7AY-bSzC86-6zp2rJ-Az4KJj-pp4fTG-3rspF-4ixT6n-egTTak-6AqmhE-6yDTdw-p7Ar25-avuPd5-cs4Rn-YQY6-nkbEUK-iPadRQ-xPW9-dQAtpV-fCtqJh-4TUbH2-2pmDk-eM9U-9KHsS5-dVj7be-7pZ9Tz-2ZK4kW-3ptFZ-egTTcg-ch9kVS-2pYe6i-4Lm8mx-9qAWNB-qT1Xrr-a17Wig-duovRi-PUDfZ-a17Wen-4tGJ69-EHs7b-4P2LeB-47uVkU-3xJst-6bgbCA-f3vzCT-kzY1J-6hrPSk-244bFA-z7wxV-9678Q6

When TTD Benefits are Owed and in What Amount

Oct 3, 2016

Kennamer Bros., Inc. v. Ronney Stewart - TTD benefits are owed when an employee produces substantial evidence showing that his on-the-job accident caused his injury, and the amount to be paid is the state average weekly wage at the time of the injury.

A Pension Board May Be an Independent Entity from the Municipality It Serves

Jul 24, 2016

City of Birmingham v. Alex Thomas - The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals has held that a pension board is a separate entity from the municipality under certain conditions.

When Do Mileage Expenses Begin to Accrue?
Photo by miguelb. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mig/215734195/in/photolist-k4Gg6-62S7AY-bSzC86-6zp2rJ-Az4KJj-pp4fTG-3rspF-4ixT6n-egTTak-6AqmhE-6yDTdw-p7Ar25-avuPd5-cs4Rn-YQY6-nkbEUK-iPadRQ-xPW9-dQAtpV-fCtqJh-4TUbH2-2pmDk-eM9U-9KHsS5-dVj7be-7pZ9Tz-2ZK4kW-3ptFZ-egTTcg-ch9kVS-2pYe6i-4Lm8mx-9qAWNB-qT1Xrr-a17Wig-duovRi-PUDfZ-a17Wen-4tGJ69-EHs7b-4P2LeB-47uVkU-3xJst-6bgbCA-f3vzCT-kzY1J-6hrPSk-244bFA-z7wxV-9678Q6

When Do Mileage Expenses Begin to Accrue?

Oct 6, 2016

Tracy Page v. Southern Care, Inc. - Where an employer is liable to pay mileage expenses under the Alabama Workers' Compensation Act, the mileage costs to and from medical providers should be measured from the employee's home.

Being a lawyer doesn’t mean doing business as usual.

Recent Posts

  • Inspiration Strikes at the Oddest Times
  • Quitting One Thing to Make Room for Another (Lawyerpreneur’s Finale)
  • From High-Rise Buildings to High-Stakes Thrillers with Bonnie Kistler
  • Mental Health among Lawyers with Suzan Hixon
  • Coaching Lawyers in Career Crisis with Annie Little

Search the Blog

Contact Me

Send me an email and I'll get back to you.

Send Message
Doing your best work. Be your best self. Let me help you get there with my new book "Level Up Your Law Practice"

© 2023 · Richter Holdings, LLC

  • Home
  • Blog
  • Lawyerpreneur Podcast
  • Contact
  • What I’m Doing Now
Prev Next