Indiana: Court of Appeals Upholds Exclusive Remedy

In a case decided on Jan. 31, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the exclusive remedy rule of the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of an employee’s complaint.

In Diane Eichstadt vs Frisch’s Restaurants, Inc., the plaintiff was employed by Frisch’s as an hourly worker at a Golden Corral restaurant. On July 31, 2005, Darrell Campbell, the restaurant manager and plaintiff’s supervisor, came up behind Eichstadt while she was working and struck her on the buttocks with a clipboard causing her injury. The blow was hard enough that it "lifted [Eichstadt] off of her feet." The restaurant manager was disciplined and eventually terminated as a result of the incident.

Eichstadt filed a complaint against both Campbell and Frisch’s, claiming she was injured as a direct result of being struck with the clipboard. Frisch’s filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the trial court. The trial court found that Eichstadt had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies pursuant to the exclusivity rule of the WCA and that she had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On appeal, Eichstadt argued that her complaint was not barred by the exclusive remedy rule because her injuries did not occur by accident. She claimed that because Campbell committed an intentional act against her, that act should be imputed to Frisch’s. The court of appeals rejected that argument, finding that the injury was not shown to have been intended by the employer.

In its discussion, the court found that before an injury can be said to have been intended by an employer, two requirements must be met. First, the employer itself must have intended the injury. It must be the employer who harbors the intent and not merely a supervisor, manager, or foreman. Second, the employer must have intended the injury or had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur. Here, while Campbell may have intended to injure the plaintiff, there was no evidence that Frisch’s intended Eichstadt’s injuries. In fact, it was shown that Campbell was disciplined and terminated for violating corporate policies.

Direct questions to NAMIC's Regulatory Affairs Counsel Marsha Harrison.

Posted: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:00:00 AM. Modified: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 1:20:56 PM.

(317) 875-5250 - Indianapolis | (202) 628-1558 - Washington, D.C.

Contact NAMIC | Press | Advertise | Sponsor

We are 1,400 property/casualty insurance companies serving more than 135 million auto, home and business policyholders, with more than $196 billion in premiums accounting for 50 percent of the automobile/homeowners market and 31 percent of the business insurance market. We are the largest and most diverse property/casualty trade association in the country, with regional and local mutual insurance companies on main streets across America joining many of the country’s largest national insurers who also call NAMIC their home. More than 200,000 people are employed by NAMIC members.