## Facts

- Super Concrete Co., Inc. (Super) owned an outdoor power washer used to wash trucks used in transporting concrete.
- In October 1985, Super hired Myco, Inc. (Myco), an electrical service and supply company, to convert the washer from a gasoline-driven pump to an electric motor drive.
- Myco completed the conversion, and the companies had no further business dealings.
- On June 10, 1987, Thomas Fugitt, a Super employee and truck driver, was using the power washer when he was electrocuted after picking up the metal spray wand.
- Fugitt’s wife received workers’-compensation death benefits through Super under the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA).
- Fugitt’s wife then filed a wrongful-death action against Myco, alleging Myco negligently performed the conversion work (including installing a non-watertight starter box and using inadequate clamping that allowed water intrusion).
- Myco filed a third-party complaint against Super seeking indemnity (and, in substance, contribution), alleging Super altered or modified the washer contrary to Myco’s instructions and thereby caused or contributed to the electrocution.
- Myco’s allegations included that Super replaced or changed electrical components Myco had installed (such as the cord and plug-related parts) and otherwise tampered with the equipment after Myco’s work was done.
- The trial court ruled for Super (granting Super’s motion and dismissing/entering judgment against Myco’s third-party claim) on the ground that WCA exclusivity barred third-party claims against an employer for indemnification or contribution tied to an employee’s work injury.
- Myco appealed, arguing Super owed Myco an independent duty to use the power washer in a way that would prevent injury and avoid exposing Myco to liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the WCA’s exclusivity provision bars a third party sued in tort (Myco) from pursuing common-law indemnity or contribution against the injured worker’s employer (Super) for the same injury.
2. Whether Myco’s allegations that Super modified the equipment and had a duty to use it safely stated an independent basis for indemnity sufficient to avoid the WCA exclusivity bar absent an express indemnity contract.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s disposition in Super’s favor on Myco’s third-party complaint.
- The court held that the WCA’s exclusivity provision barred Myco’s attempt to obtain indemnity (or contribution in indemnity form) from Super for Fugitt’s death.
- The court concluded Myco did not plead an express indemnity agreement or another recognized independent obligation running from Super to Myco that could support indemnity despite workers’ compensation exclusivity.

## Legal Principles

- The District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act makes workers’ compensation benefits the employer’s exclusive liability to the employee (and the employee’s survivors) for workplace injury or death.
- Allowing a third-party tort defendant to shift liability back to a covered employer through contribution or common-law indemnity would impose tort-type exposure on the employer beyond the statutory scheme and is generally barred by WCA exclusivity.
- Calling a claim “indemnity” does not avoid exclusivity if the claim is, in substance, an effort to reallocate fault for negligence in connection with the employee’s injury.
- Common-law indemnity, where recognized, requires a genuinely independent basis for shifting the loss (most commonly an express contractual indemnity provision, or a narrow category of relationships where the indemnitee’s liability is vicarious or purely secondary).
- Allegations that the employer’s later conduct (such as post-installation modifications or misuse) caused or contributed to the employee’s injury do not, by themselves, create the kind of independent duty to the third party that supports indemnity against an employer protected by the WCA.

## Conclusion

Because Super had secured workers’ compensation coverage and was paying statutory death benefits, the WCA’s exclusivity provision prevented Myco from recovering indemnity (or contribution) from Super for the damages sought in the wrongful-death action, and Myco’s allegations about Super’s modifications and general safety duties did not supply an express or otherwise independent indemnity obligation that could overcome that bar.


Myco, Inc. v. Super Concrete Co., Inc., 565 A.2d 293 (1989)