On April 29, 1998, the Maine Law Court clearly and unequivocally reaffirmed Maine's strong commitment to the workers' compensation exclusivity and immunity principle in the case of Searway v. Rainey, 1998 ME 86. A discussion of the exclusivity and immunity principle and the Searway decision is this:

     One of the primary benefits that Maine employers get from the Maine Workers' Compensation Act is immunity from lawsuits arising out of work-related injuries and deaths. This is a benefit which, in legal theory, offsets the financial and other burdens placed on Maine employers by the Maine Workers' Compensation Act. This benefit is commonly known as the "Workers' Compensation Exclusivity and Immunity Principle." This principle has two parts: (1) that statutory workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy to employees and those claiming through them for work-related injuries and deaths, and (2) that an employer who provides proper workers' compensation coverage is immune from lawsuits arising out of work-related injuries and deaths.

     The relevant statutory provisions are found in sections 104 and 408 of the Maine Workers' Compensation Act. Section 104 provides: "An employer who has secured the payment of compensation in conformity with [the requirements of the Maine Workers' Compensation Act] is exempt from civil actions, either at common law or under [the Employer's Liability Act, the Maine Tort Claims Act, or the Maine Wrongful Death statutes] involving personal injuries sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of employment, or for death resulting from those injuries." Section 408 provides in part: "An employee of an employer who has secured the payment of compensation as [required by the Workers' Compensation Act] is deemed to have waived the employee's right of action at common law and under section 104 to recover damages for the injuries sustained by the employee."

     In the Searway case, an employee sued his employer for assault and battery. The employee brought his lawsuit in the Maine District Court. The employee claimed that he was assaulted by his employer on a job site, during an argument concerning back pay. The employee sought damages for physical injuries, emotional injuries, and lost earnings. The Maine Law Court ruled that the employee's claims were clearly barred by the exclusivity and immunity provisions of the Act. The Court noted that it had consistently ruled that all types of tort claims, including intentional tort claims, fall within the exclusivity and immunity provisions of the Maine Workers' Compensation Act. The Court specifically refused to create an exception to those exclusivity and immunity provisions. The employee's lawsuit was dismissed.

     The Searway case is only the latest in a long line of cases in which the Maine Law Court has enforced the exclusivity and immunity principle against common law tort claims and other claims. Other similar cases are: Samson v. DiConzo, 669 A.2d 760 (Me. 1996)(the broad exclusivity rule barred an employee's Liquor Liability Act claim against her employers); Li v. C.N. Brown Co., 645 A.2d 606 (Me. 1994)(in a dramatic death case, held that even intentional torts fall within the exclusivity and immunity provisions); Hatch v. The Lido Company of New England, 609 A.2d 1155 (Me. 1992) (corporate successor protected by exclusivity and immunity principle); Fanion v. McNeal, 577 A.2d 2 (Me.1990) (claims of illegally employed minors who were victims of work-related injuries were barred by the exclusivity and immunity provisions; the Act was subsequently amended to reverse this holding).

     CONCLUSION: Maine employers can take comfort from the Searway case and the other cases cited in this article that Maine employers will continue to benefit from a strong and broad workers' compensation exclusivity and immunity principle.

DISCLAIMER: All information is provided for educational or promotional purposes only and not as legal advice on a particular matter. The information is provided AS IS with no warranties of accuracy, completeness, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. Providing this information DOES NOT create an attorney-client relationship between Lawrence C. Winger, Esq. and the reader. All information is Copyright (c) Lawrence C. Winger, Esq. 2000 All Rights Reserved.

Dated: February, 2000
[Top Of Page]