Bosch v. Busch Development, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Snyder v. Celsius Energy Co.

    866 F. Supp. 1349 (D. Utah 1994)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the fact that plaintiffs elected to file workers' compensation claims in New Mexico, rather than Colorado, the state where the injury occurred, is not determinative

    The Utah Supreme Court has held that statutory immunity did not extend to statutory employers who had not in fact been required to pay workers' compensation benefits to the injured plaintiff-employee, construing a 1975 amendment to the Utah workers' compensation statute to narrow the class of "employers" entitled to statutory immunity. Pate v. Marathon Steel Co., 777 P.2d 428, 429-31 (Utah 1989); Bosch v. Busch Development, Inc. 777 P.2d 431, 432 (Utah 1989). As noted above, the Utah workers' compensation statute does not apply to the claims of these plaintiffs.

  2. Ghersi v. Salazar

    883 P.2d 1352 (Utah 1994)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding that an employer had the right to control the details of a contract employee's work where the employer exercised control over "[w]hen, where, and how" the contract employee was to work

    Ghersi's argument, however, is that he can maintain an action for damages against Huish, even though Huish is a statutory employer, because workers' compensation premiums were paid by Adia, not by Huish, and therefore, under Pate v. Marathon Steel Co., 777 P.2d 428, 431 (Utah 1989), he can sue Huish for damages. Pate held that it is only the "immediate, or common law employer, who actually pays compensation, and its officers, agents, and employees [who] are shielded by the exclusive remedy immunity conferred by section 35-1-60" and that under § 35-1-62 an injured worker can maintain an action for damages against a statutory employer who had not paid workers' compensation premiums. Id. at 431; see also Bosch v. Busch Developments, Inc., 777 P.2d 431, 432 (Utah 1989). Ghersi bases his assertion that Huish is a statutory employer on § 35-1-42(3)(a) (Supp.

  3. Goheen v. Yellow Freight Systems

    32 F.3d 1450 (10th Cir. 1994)   Cited 5 times

    Pate, 777 P.2d at 431. See also, Shupe v. Wasatch Electric Co., Inc., 546 P.2d 896 (Utah 1976); Bosch v. Busch Development, Inc., 777 P.2d 431 (Utah 1989); Lamb v. W-Energy, Inc., 884 F.2d 1349 (10th Cir. 1989). The Appellant asserts that the rationale of the Utah Supreme Court in the Pate case should be applied in the case at bar to allow her cause of action against Yellow Freight Systems. The Appellant contends that because the Utah legislature eliminated worker's compensation immunity for statutory employers as defined in Section 35-1-42, immunity for an employer of a loaned servant would necessarily be abrogated as well.

  4. Bliss v. Ernst Home Center, Inc.

    866 F. Supp. 1362 (D. Utah 1994)   Cited 4 times

    In any event, recent cases have held that exclusive remedy protection is not available to "statutory employer[s] who [have] not been required to pay workers' compensation benefits." Bosch v. Busch Dev., Inc., 777 P.2d 431, 432 (Utah 1989); see also Ghersi, at 1355. Ernst paid Bliss' workers' compensation payments, albeit indirectly.