What Do You Think?
A company allegedly fails to fix a leak in a warehouse freezer section, turning it into an “ice skating rink.” Predictably, one of its employees falls and seriously injures himself. That worker then obtains what he views as a completely inadequate amount of workers’ compensation benefits. Do these circumstances allow him to sue the company for personal injury? That was the question involving a worker for a natural food distributor.
The employee was working in the food distributor’s warehouse when he slipped and hit his head and upper body. He said that ammonia pipes had been leaking gallons of water in the freezer department where he worked, turning the floors into an “ice skating rink.” What’s more, management, he said, was aware of the dangerous condition but continued to require him to work there. After his injury, he said, he had massive headaches, memory and sleep issues, and unceasing back pain.
He settled a workers’ compensation claim with the company, but he was dissatisfied with the result. He didn’t receive a check for five months, he claimed. He also contended that the benefits were meagre, because the employer reported only one-third of his salary to the carrier. He sued the company in tort for negligence.
Workers’ compensation is an injured employee’ sole remedy in Maryland, unless the injury was the result of the deliberate intent of the employer to injure or kill the covered employee. In other words, to sue for personal injury, the injured employee has to show the employer intentionally and deliberately acted with a desire to bring about the injury.
There is also an exception to the exclusive remedy rule when an employer fails to maintain insurance coverage.
The company asked the court to throw out the case because the worker didn’t plausibly allege that either exception applied.
Could the employee sue for negligence?
A. No. He didn’t show that the injury was premeditated or that the company lacked insurance coverage.
B. Yes. He alleged two bases for bypassing the exclusive remedy rule: the company knew about and subjected him to the danger, and the company provided him a trivial amount of benefits compared to what he was entitled to receive.
If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Perry v. Coldwell Banker, No. 1:25-cv-04026-JRR (D. Md. 08/07/26), which dismissed the claims.
The employee failed to show that either exception to the exclusive remedy rule applied. “For starters, while Plaintiff alleges KeHe was aware of the hazardous condition … [he] offers no allegations … that KeHE acted with deliberate intent to injure (or kill) him,” the court said. He also didn’t identify an intentional and deliberate act by the employer with a desire to bring about injury. It was not enough to show that the employer was aware of the danger.
As to the employee’s claim that he was unable to obtain benefits, the court noted that he acknowledged receiving benefits, though he was dissatisfied with the amount. The failure to obtain compensation only leads to an exception to the exclusive remedy rule if it demonstrates that the employer failed to maintain coverage. The employee’s dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation he received did not in itself establish an exception such that he could sue the company for personal injuries.
The court dismissed the claims against the food distributor.
