Fillinger v. Foster

10 Citing cases

  1. Pizarro-Plaza v. U.S. Coatings, Inc.

    133 So. 3d 874 (Ala. 2013)   Cited 5 times

    Although § 25–5–11(b), Ala.Code 1975, allows for co-employee suits in certain limited circumstances involving willful conduct, this Court has held that such suits are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the LHWCA where the accident falls within the twilight zone of concurrent jurisdiction and the scope of the LHWCA. Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala.1984). Some courts have recognized an exception to the exclusivity provision of the LHWCA where the employer has committed an intentional tort. Fisher v. Halliburton, 667 F.3d 602 (5th Cir.2012).

  2. Hill v. Knapp

    396 Md. 700 (Md. 2007)   Cited 22 times

    Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 541, 121 S.Ct. 2404, 2414, 150 L.Ed.2d 532 (2001); Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861, 869-74, 120 S.Ct. 1913, 1919-22, 146 L.Ed.2d 914 (2000). Alabama considered this issue and reached the same conclusion as we reach today.Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1984). In Fillinger, the longshoreman sued his co-employee for injuries allegedly sustained while working on the job.

  3. Harris v. JLG Indus.

    CIVIL ACTION NO.15-00365-KD-B (S.D. Ala. Jan. 11, 2016)

    § 933(i). The Alabama Supreme Court, in Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1984) addressed the reach of this provision, and held that an employee who sued his co-employee for injuries he suffered while working as a ship fitter at a land-based operation was prohibited from suing his co-employee for injuries sustained on the job under the LHWCA. In reaching this conclusion, the Court found that because the LHWCA and Alabama's worker's compensation law was in conflict with respect to the maintenance of co-employee suits, the LHWCA preempted Alabama's worker's compensation law.

  4. Chestang v. Skinner

    488 So. 2d 818 (Ala. 1986)

    This Court has previously decided that the exclusivity provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 933 (i) pre-empt negligence suits by land-based maritime workers against co-employees. Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala.), cert. denied, Foster v. Fillinger, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 223, 83 L.Ed.2d 153 (1984); Bailey v. Collier, 465 So.2d 381 (Ala. 1985). Therefore, we find that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment.

  5. Peter v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.

    903 F.2d 935 (3d Cir. 1990)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that, "§ 905 [of the LHWCA] and the Supremacy Clause bar the Virgin Islands from imposing negligence liability on [a covered employer]," and that Congress "intended that compensation, not tort damages, were to be the primary source of relief for workplace injuries for longshoremen against their employers."

    We can perceive no greater conflict than that which would be presented if we allowed this employee to sue his co-employee because he was a land-based maritime worker, and a maritime worker injured on a navigable water would be precluded from maintaining such a suit; therefore we are persuaded to hold that the exclusivity provisions of [LHWCA] apply and that the state action is barred.Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321, 326 (Ala.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 872, 105 S.Ct. 223, 83 L.Ed.2d 153 (1984). Peter's argument against preemption rests primarily on Sun Ship and Hahn and this has occasioned our extended review of the case law necessary to put those cases in proper perspective.

  6. State v. Volkswagen AG

    279 So. 3d 1109 (Ala. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    administration of a federal program, the federal law must take precedence. Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1984). Preemption may occur from explicit preemptive language in a statute, from implied congressional intent, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

  7. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Potter

    533 So. 2d 589 (Ala. 1988)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that FEGLIA preempted state court divorce judgment ordering insured to maintain ex-wife as beneficiary of existing life insurance policies

    According to the preemption doctrine, any time the law of Alabama is in conflict with federal law, or with the administration of a federal program, the federal law must take precedence. Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1984). Preemption may occur from explicit preemptive language in a statute, from implied congressional intent, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.

  8. Bailey v. Collier

    465 So. 2d 381 (Ala. 1985)   Cited 2 times

    The trial court correctly granted summary judgment against Bailey. As the trial court stated and as this Court recently held in Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 223, 83 L.Ed.2d 153 (1984), the exclusivity provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 933 (i) pre-empt negligence suits by land-based maritime workers against co-employees. It is undisputed that Bailey is a maritime employee covered by the L.H.W.C.A. and it is further undisputed that Fillinger, supra, is controlling. In fact, rather than arguing the inapplicability of Fillinger, Bailey simply argues that this Court should reconsider and overrule its opinion in that case.

  9. McMinn v. Whelan

    27 Cal. 300 (Cal. 1865)   Cited 63 times
    In McMinn v. Whelan, 27 Cal. 300, at page 313, the court declared: "By filing the supplemental complaint and issuing a summons thereon, the original action became merged in the action as supplemented by the addition of parties and subject matter, and the summons last issued should have been served by publication in order to clothe the court with jurisdiction of the persons of the absent defendants."

    The ground of exclusion was, that the certificate of the tax sale was to Michael Dundon, whereas the deed was to Patrick Michael Dundon, Jr., and these were two different persons and no connection shown between them by assignment. The law only knows one christian name. (Franklin v. Talmadge, 5 Johns. 84; Roosevelt v. Goodwin, 2 Cow. 463.) The law also disregards the word Jr., or junior, as a part of a name.

  10. Tomlin v. Bush

    460 So. 2d 1327 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984)

    Tomlin contends the LHWCA is not an exclusive remedy and that his action is not barred by 33 U.S.C. § 933 (i). In Fillinger v. Foster, 448 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1984), the Supreme Court of Alabama held that such an action is barred by 33 U.S.C. § 933 (i) stating: "We are of the opinion that the LHWCA and the law of Alabama [on worker's compensation] are in serious conflict as to the maintenance of co-employee suits, and because that is the case, we hold that the federal law will preempt state law."