## Facts

- JIJ Nelson, Joint Venture (JIJ) was the general contractor on a state highway project in Fairbanks, Alaska (the Airport Road Extension Project).
- JIJ contracted with Arctic General, Inc. (Arctic) to furnish and maintain six pieces of heavy road equipment, including a road scraper, and to furnish operators for that equipment.
- Arctic hired Roy Ruble to operate equipment on the project; he obtained the job through a union hiring hall.
- Bud LaFon, a part owner of Arctic, supervised and directed Ruble’s work on the project.
- Shortly after Ruble was hired, the state informed JIJ that, to comply with federal and state requirements, JIJ needed either to treat Arctic as a subcontractor or to place Arctic’s operators on JIJ’s payroll.
- JIJ placed Arctic’s operators, including Ruble, on JIJ’s payroll, but Ruble continued to be supervised by LaFon.
- The payment arrangement reflected that Arctic ultimately bore the labor cost: after JIJ paid Arctic an equipment rental fee, Arctic paid JIJ for Ruble’s wages.
- A few weeks later, Ruble was injured while operating the road scraper when a part of the scraper became disengaged, causing the machine to come to an abrupt halt.
- Ruble reported the injury to LaFon, but Arctic did not file an injury report with the Alaska Workmen’s Compensation Board.
- Ruble filed a workers’ compensation claim against JIJ and received benefits.
- Roy Ruble and his wife, Pamela Ruble, then filed a tort action against Arctic, alleging negligent maintenance of the road scraper.
- Arctic moved for summary judgment, arguing Ruble was Arctic’s employee for workers’ compensation purposes and that Alaska’s exclusive-remedy statute barred the tort suit; the trial court granted summary judgment for Arctic on cross-motions, and the Rubles appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Arctic qualified as Ruble’s employer (including as a co-employer) for purposes of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act, despite Ruble being placed on JIJ’s payroll.
2. If Arctic was Ruble’s employer for workers’ compensation purposes, whether AS 23.30.055 barred the Rubles’ negligence action against Arctic.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s summary judgment in favor of Arctic.
- The court held that Arctic was Ruble’s employer for purposes of the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act.
- Because Arctic was treated as an employer, AS 23.30.055 made workers’ compensation Ruble’s exclusive remedy against Arctic, barring the tort claim.

## Legal Principles

- AS 23.30.055 provides that workers’ compensation liability is exclusive and replaces all other liability of an employer to an employee (and to others with derivative claims) for workplace injury.
- When a worker is plainly an employee and is injured in covered work, the key question for exclusive-remedy immunity is whose employee the worker was at the time of injury (including possible shared employment), not whether the worker was an employee at all.
- Employer status for workers’ compensation purposes depends on the actual working relationship and is determined from the facts, not from labels such as “lessor,” “subcontractor,” or the name on a payroll check.
- Factors bearing on employer status include who has the right to control and direct the details of the work, who provides and maintains the equipment used, and how wages and related costs are handled.
- A general employer and a borrowing/special employer may both be treated as employers for workers’ compensation purposes; if so, the exclusive-remedy bar can apply to either employer.

## Conclusion

Arctic supplied the road scraper and operators, continued to supervise Ruble through its part owner after Ruble was placed on JIJ’s payroll for compliance reasons, and remained financially responsible for his wages through reimbursement arrangements. On those facts, the Alaska Supreme Court treated Arctic as Ruble’s employer for workers’ compensation purposes and held that AS 23.30.055 barred the Rubles’ negligence action against Arctic, so summary judgment for Arctic was affirmed.


Ruble v. Arctic General, Inc., 598 P.2d 95 (1979)