THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM BELK, by and through TAQUITTA BELK, ADMINISTRATRIX, Plaintiff,
BOISE CASCADE WOOD PRODUCTS, L.L.C., a member of BOISE CASCADE COMPANY, JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2, Defendants.
in the Court of Appeals 13 November 2018.
by Defendant Boise Cascade Company from order entered 11
December 2017 by Judge David Thomas Lambeth, Jr., in Lee
County, No. 16 CVS 285 Superior Court.
Law Firm, PLLC, by Tara Davidson Muller, and The Hunt Law
Firm, by Anita B. Hunt and Ralph A. Hunt, Jr., for
Blackwell, LLP, by William E. Corum, and Teague, Campbell,
Dennis & Gorham, LLP, by Jennifer B. Milak, for
Defendant-Appellant Boise Cascade Wood Products, L.L.C.
Defendant Boise Cascade Company ("Boise
Cascade") appeals from the trial court's order
denying its motion for summary judgment. Boise Cascade
contends that exclusive jurisdiction over this case belongs
to the Industrial Commission, because Boise Cascade was a
"special employer" of the deceased. After careful
review, we reverse.
Cascade is a limited liability company which owns and
operates a plywood manufacturing plant in Moncure. Boise
Cascade entered into an Agreement for Temporary Services with
a staffing company, Aerotek, Inc. ("Aerotek"), to
provide temporary personnel for the plant. Pursuant to their
Agreement for Temporary Services, Aerotek recruited William
Belk as a candidate for a mechanic position in Boise
Cascade's maintenance department.
August 2014, Mr. Belk began working at the Boise Cascade
plant. On 26 September 2015, after working at the Boise
Cascade plant for more than a year, Mr. Belk was killed in a
workplace accident when a machine he was repairing collapsed.
Belk's estate ("Plaintiff") brought a
workers' compensation claim against Aerotek before the
Industrial Commission and received an award of death
April 2016, Plaintiff instituted this civil action against
Boise Cascade seeking damages for Mr. Belk's death. Boise
Cascade then filed to dismiss, which was denied. Boise
Cascade subsequently moved for summary judgment, which, after
a hearing on the matter, was also denied.
appeal is interlocutory. Typically, "[t]he denial of a
motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order and is
not appealable." Harris v. Walden, 314 N.C.
284, 286, 333 S.E.2d 254, 256 (1985). Nonetheless, "the
denial of a motion concerning the exclusivity provision of
the Workers' Compensation Act affects a substantial right
and thus is immediately appealable." Fagundes v.
Ammons Dev. Grp., Inc., __ ...