Workers' Compensation Bar Prevails

The New Jersey Appellate Division affirms the exclusivity of workers' compensation in a workplace-fall case.

Failure to Assist Not Actionable

 For a workplace injury claim to bypass the exclusive New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, the employer's conduct must be an "intentional wrong" – meaning they knew injury or death was virtually certain, and the injury is beyond the scope of typical industrial employment. Simply entrusting an injured employee to a friend for transport to medical care generally doesn't meet this high bar.

Insurance Coverage Denied in Employee Suit

A recent case, Rice Enterprises, LLC v. RSUI Indemnity Co., highlights the complexities of insurance coverage for employers facing lawsuits from employees. The case involved a former employee who sued Rice Enterprises for negligence related to alleged sexual harassment and assault by a manager. Rice Enterprises sought coverage under its insurance policies, specifically a Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability policy from Zenith Insurance Company and a Commercial Umbrella liability policy from RSUI Indemnity Company.  

Workplace Injury: No Civil Recourse

A recent decision by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, highlighted the application of the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity bar in a case involving a fatal parking lot accident on employer property. The court in Faisal Jameel v. HMH Hospitals Corporation affirmed the dismissal of a civil lawsuit against the employer, finding that workers' compensation covered the tragic incident and did not meet the high standard for the "intentional wrong" exception.

Employer Contribution Barred

On January 15, 2025, US District Judge Edward S. Kiel issued a significant decision in Wright v. Cezaire (Case No. 21-cv-13491), affirming the exclusivity provision of the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act. This ruling has crucial implications for employers facing potential liability in third-party lawsuits.

Marijuana Test: Walmart Wins Case - Retaliatory Firing

The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act – referred to herein as ‘CREAMMA.’ does not expressly provide a private remedy for redressing employment discrimination against cannabis users. 

Podcast: A Federal Court Analyzes an Intentional Wrong Claim

The recent US District Court decision in Lopez v. Corozal Auto Repair Inc. delves into the critical issue of the exclusivity rule and its narrow exceptions, focusing on intentional wrong claims under NJSA 34:15-8. To expand the discussion among all workers' compensation community stakeholders, we have generated a free podcast on this topic.

Navigating the Complexities of Workers' Compensation Exclusivity in New Jersey

The recent decision in Lopez v. Corozal Auto Repair Inc., a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, provides valuable insights into the intricate legal landscape of workers' compensation law. Specifically, the court delved into the critical issue of the exclusivity rule and its narrow exceptions, particularly focusing on intentional wrong claims under NJSA 34:15-8.

Podcast: The Limitations of a Workers' Compensation Insurance Policy

The recent New Jersey Supreme decision in Rodriquez v. Shelborne Spring LLC et al. has defined the limits of an employer's workers' compensation insurance policy. We have generated a free podcast on this topic to expand the discussion among all workers' compensation community stakeholders.

NJ Supreme Court Limits Employer Insurance Coverage for Worker Injuries

In a recent decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified the scope of insurance coverage for employers facing lawsuits from injured workers. The case Dionicio Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring LLA addresses whether an employer's liability insurance policy covers claims of gross negligence, recklessness, and intentional misconduct brought by an employee who has already received workers' compensation benefits.

NJ Supreme Court to Review Workplace Insurance Exclusion

The NJ Supreme Court will review whether a workers’ compensation insurance company has a duty to defend an employer against personal injury claims brought by the employer’s employee under an employer's liability insurance policy.

Intentional Tort v Negligence

A New Jersey appellate court found that an employee could not proceed with an intentional tort claim against an employer because the evidence needed to meet the two-prong standard was lacking.

Not an Exception

In most instances, the sole remedy for a worker injured at work is Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA] benefits. Even if the employer fails to obtain workers’ compensation insurance, the employee remains limited to those remedies provided under the WCA.

California Supreme Court Bars Household Contact Covid Claims

Today, the California Supreme Court decided that the Workers’ Compensation Act [WCA] did not bar a derivative claim. However, using a public policy rationale, it did not extend an employer's duty of care to an employee's household contacts who contracted COVID-19.

California Supreme Court to File its Decision in a Derivative Immunity Claim Tomorrow

The California Supreme Court will file its much-anticipated decision regarding KUCIEMBA v. VICTORY WOODWORKS, Case: S274191, on Thursday, July 6, 2023, at 10:00 am (PT). The Court had accepted the request of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to answer a question of state law regarding employers' liability in COVID claims. Briefs are now available online (See below).

The Exclusivity Rule Does Not Bar Claims of a Minor

A minor may elect to file a negligence action against an employer and not be prohibited by the Exclusivity Rule that typically bars employee claims against their employers.

Dual Employment and the Proposed NLRB Joint-Employer Standard

Workers’ compensation claims may be pursued against two companies if there is found to be joint employment. While case law defines employment status, the US National Labor Relations Board has issued a proposed Rule to substantiate a dual employer status.

California Supreme Court Agrees to Review COVID Take Home Liability Case

The California Supreme Court has accepted for review the question of whether the workers’ compensation act bars a claim against an employer by a household contact of an employee who contacted COVID at work. The court granted the request, made under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that the court will decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Dual Employment Status Bars Double Recovery

An employee may have dual employers but ultimately can only receive a single recovery from only one employer for work-related injuries. The “exclusivity doctrine,” permitting a complete recovery of damages against an employer, limits an injured worker’s benefit recovery to the compensation system, barring an intentional tort.

Injury Caused by Defeated Machine Guard Results in OSHA Fine of $159,522

An employee working at Crystal Finishing Systems Inc.’s aluminum extrusion facility in Weston was hospitalized with serious injuries after being struck by a puller machine while trying to unjam a piece of aluminum.