NC Court Nixes Third-Party Complaint Filed Against Injured Worker’s Employer

Issue Commentary: After 32 Years, NC Courts Still Struggle with “Substantial Certainty” Test

Intentional Injury Action Against Co-Employees Fails Under Alabama’s Substantially Certain Rule

Applying Alabama’s intentional injury exception to the exclusive remedy rule, the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a trial court’s decision granting two co-employee defendants summary judgment in a civil action...

Fifth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Favoring Former Employers in Toxic Chemical Case

In an unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of two former employers who, according to...

Ohio Employer Not Liable in Tort Following Fatal Trench Collapse

An Ohio appellate court recently affirmed a state trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer that had been sued in tort following the death of an...

Texas High Court Shows "Substantially Certain" Rule Differs "Substantially" from State to State

In an opinion that provides perhaps the best discussion of the intentional injury exception to a state’s exclusive remedy rule, the Supreme Court of Texas held that in order for...

CT Worker Fails in Intentional Tort Action Against Employer

A Connecticut appellate court recently held that a state trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of an employer-defendant in an intentional tort claimed filed...

Jury-Rigged “Safety” Mechanism Subjects NJ Employer to Substantially Certain Tort Claim

Allegations that a New Jersey company maintained an unwritten policy of avoiding the use of a lock-out, tag-out (“LOTO”) safety feature on a machine because doing so would require a...

Idaho High Court Does “a 180”: Employees May Sue Employers for Reckless Conduct

Reversing itself (in relevant part), a divided Supreme Court of Idaho cast aside a year-old decision and, after re-argument, adopted what amounts to a reckless standard in so-called “intentional” tort...

Former NJ Employee’s Tort Suit Alleging Pharma Employer Forced Him to Use Non-FDA Approved Nasal Spray is Barred by Exclusivity Rule

A former pharmaceutical employee, who contended his employer and its CEO forced him to use a proposed (and non-FDA approved) nasal spray medication that the employer was trying to develop...

Deeply Divided Oklahoma Supreme Court “Opts Out” of Legislature’s Definition of “intentional” Injury

“Substantially Certain” Doctrine Stays, in Spite of Specific Language to the Contrary In a deeply divided decision, with three justices concurring specially with the majority’s opinion, and four justices dissenting,...

NJ Diabetic Teacher’s Failure to Accommodate Claim Not Barred by Exclusivity

In a decision discussing several employment-related law issues, a New Jersey appellate court held, in relevant part, that a bodily injury claim arising from an employer’s failure to accommodate allegation...