Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams (2021)

Our plain-English summary of Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams (Kentucky Court of Appeals, October 15, 2021).

Vickie Williams developed mesothelioma and sued Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (formerly Square D Company), along with other makers and sellers of asbestos products, including Union Carbide. She alleged she was exposed directly while working at a Square D facility for a few months in 1978, and indirectly through asbestos her father brought home on his work clothes. After she died in 1917 her husband, as executor, was substituted as plaintiff. Square D argued that workers' compensation was her only remedy and asked for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the exclusivity statute applied only to workplace injuries and that there was no evidence her cancer came from working at Square D. Square D appealed. The Kentucky Supreme Court later held in Sheets v. Ford Motor Co. that such a denial cannot be appealed immediately under the collateral order doctrine. Applying that ruling, the Court of Appeals found no substantial public interest at stake between private parties, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and sent the case back to the trial court.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 15, 2021
• Docket: No. 2018-CA-0866-MR
• Stage: Appeal from summary judgment
• Unpublished opinion. Many courts limit citing unpublished opinions as precedent.
• State: Kentucky

Outcome. The Court of Appeals dismissed Schneider Electric (Square D)'s appeal of the denial of summary judgment as interlocutory, for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded to the trial court, which favors Williams.

What the court held. Under Sheets v. Ford Motor Co., denial of summary judgment based on workers' compensation up-the-ladder immunity is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, because no substantial public interest is imperiled when the parties are private.

Issues decided: Employer and Contractor Liability, and Workers' Compensation, Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Vickie Williams: mesothelioma; died

The defendants

• Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (f/k/a Square D Company) (employer)
• Union Carbide Corporation (manufacturer)

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Sheets v. Ford Motor Co. (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2021). The Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded to the trial court, holding that neither appellate court had jurisdiction over Ford's interlocutory appeal of the denial of summary judgment on up-the-ladder immunity, so Sheets's estate prevailed on the jurisdiction question.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., F/K/A SQUARE D COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

PAUL WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY; COLBY WILLIAMS BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, GUARDIAN,

AND NEXT FRIEND PAUL WILLIAMS; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; AND PAUL WILLIAMS,

EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKIE WILLIAMS, Appellees.

No. 2018-CA-0866-MR.

Rendered: October 15, 2021.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

On Remand from the Kentucky Supreme Court 2019-SC-0537-DG

Appeal from Fayette Circuit Court Honorable John E. Reynolds, Judge Action No. 16-ci-01842.

DISMISSING AND REMANDING.

Palmer G. Vance, II, Todd S. Page, Matthew R. Parsons, Lexington, Kentucky BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT.

Joseph D. Satterly, Paul J. Kelley, Paul J. Ivie, J. Eric Kiser, J. Garrett Cambron, Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE Paul WILLIAMS INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF VICKIE WILLIAMS AND AS GUARDIAN

AND NEXT FRIEND OF COLBY WILLIAMS.

BEFORE: CALDWELL, GOODWINE, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINION

GOODWINE, Judge.

This matter is on remand from the Kentucky Supreme Court instructing us to reconsider our prior Opinion in light of its recent decision in Sheets v. Ford Motor Company, 626 S.W.3d 594 (Ky. 2021). After careful review in conformity with Sheets, we dismiss this appeal as interlocutory and remand to the trial court.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Vickie Williams's ("Williams") father worked for Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (f/k/a Square D Company) ("Square D") for many years, during which time she purportedly encountered asbestos brought home on her father's clothing. Williams also worked for Square D for a few months as a teenager in 1978. In her May 2016 unverified complaint, Williams asserted that she was directly exposed to asbestos when working at Square D's facility in 1978 and was indirectly exposed to asbestos fibers from her father's clothing[1] which led to her mesothelioma.

Square D's answer invoked the exclusive remedy provisions of the Kentucky Workers' Compensation statutes whereby Williams's only potential recourse is via a workers' compensation claim. Specifically, KRS[2] 342.690(1) provides in relevant part that "[i]f an employer secures payment of compensation as required by this chapter, the liability of such employer under this chapter shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee[.]" Williams died in February 2017, and her husband/executor was substituted as named plaintiff. Square D moved for summary judgment initially and after the close of discovery. The trial court denied the motion, concluding KRS 342.690 applied only to workplace injuries and there was no evidence that Williams's mesothelioma was caused by her having worked for Square D.[3] This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

Williams's first argument on appeal is that it should be dismissed as interlocutory.[4] We previously ruled that Williams's argument runs contrary to our holding in Ervin Cable Construction, LLC v. Lay, 461 S.W.3d 422, 423 (Ky. App. 2015), that "the denial of a substantial claim of immunity is an exception to the finality rule that interlocutory orders are not immediately appealable." However, the Kentucky Supreme Court recently overruled Ervin and held in Sheets that an appellate court does not have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a trial court's denial of a motion for summary judgment based on up-the-ladder immunity pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act. Sheets, 626 S.W.3d 594. Specifically, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that "merely being denied a claimed `immunity' was not necessarily sufficient to invoke the [collateral order] doctrine as an exception to the final order rule." Id. at 598 (citing Commonwealth v. Farmer, 423 S.W.3d 690 (Ky. 2014)). The Court explained that "the collateral order doctrine requires an order that (1) conclusively decides an important issue separate from the merits of the case; (2) is effectively unreviewable following final judgment; and (3) involves a substantial public interest that would be imperiled absent an immediate appeal." Id.

We conclude that the trial court's denial of up-the-ladder immunity in this case does not meet the three-element test articulated in Farmer as it does not involve a substantial public interest that would be imperiled absent an immediate appeal. The parties are not governmental entities or officials. Therefore, there is no concern with government efficiency, the disruption of government services due to the costs and burden of litigation or public coffers placed at risk. The interests at stake in this case are purely personal to Williams and Square D without an impact on the greater public interest. Because the interlocutory order at issue in this case does not meet the requirements of the collateral order doctrine set forth in Farmer, and reiterated in Sheets, we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings without addressing the parties' remaining arguments. ALL CONCUR.

[1] Williams also sued sundry manufacturers and sellers of products containing asbestos, including Appellee Union Carbide Corporation. [2] Kentucky Revised Statutes.

[3] Briefly, we reject Square D's argument that the trial court's decision must be reversed because it adopted a proposed order tendered by Williams. The court asked both Williams and Square D for proposed orders and later adopted Williams's tendered draft. Such a procedure is not impermissible. See, e.g., Prater v. Cabinet for Human Resources, Commonwealth of Kentucky, 954 S.W.2d 954, 956 (Ky. 1997). [4] A motion panel of this Court has already summarily rejected this argument, but a merits panel generally may revisit a motion panel's decision. Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. Young, 361 S.W.3d 344, 350 (Ky. App. 2012).

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Kentucky asbestos laws
• Kentucky asbestos exposure sites