LEGAL ISSUES Court Finds Private Person can be Held Liable for Negligent Inspection
A private person who inspects a workplace can be held liable for injury or death due to hazards that should have been found and addressed. That is effectively what the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia recently held in answering a certified question posed by a U.S. Court of Appeals in need of advice on state law. In Bragg v. U.S., the plaintiffs sought damages for the death of two miners who succumbed to carbon monoxide in a coal mine fire. The case was brought against the U.S.
government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for negligent inspection by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). The state court cited no case directly on point, but concluded: “In matters of negligence, liability attaches to a wrongdoer, not because of a breach of a contractual relationship, but because of a breach of duty which results in an injury to others.” While the Bragg case is about federal liability, the West Virginia Supreme Court’s opinion draws a road map for suits against private parties for alleged negligent inspections. Although not prime actors, such persons have been brought under a liability spotlight as if they were prime actors.
Read More Vicariously Liability Means Secondary Coverage, Irrespective of General Rules Governing Primary and Excess Policies
On February 28, 2013, the Fourth District California Court of Appeal issued a significant decision regarding the priority of coverage in matters involving vicarious liability of employers for their negligent employees. In GuideOne Mut. Ins. Group v. Utica Nat’l Ins. Group, the court reversed a summary judgment entered in favor of GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company in a contribution action filed by Utica National Insurance Group. The Court held that because primary and umbrella policies issued by Utica covered only an employer’s vicarious liability for a negligent employee whose negligence was insured under primary and umbrella GuideOne policies, both GuideOne policies were primary to both Utica policies. The court relied heavily on United States Fire Ins. Co. v. National Union Fire Ins. (1980), which held that where an employer’s non-owned aircraft coverage was expressly limited to vicarious liability of the named insured, such coverage “is secondary to any coverage” held by the pilot individually. United States Fire, though, did not involve umbrella or excess liability policies, and the GuideOne court’s ruling thus constitutes a notable expansion of the rule set out in United States Fire.
Read More
Exclusive limited time offer: Register and receive the Active Shooter course, no charge courtesy of AFIMAC.
PLUS: Save 40% on ALL online courses from AFIMAC with discount code:
WVN2498. See all Workplace Violence Training Courses
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25