CompFox AI Summary
This case concerns an appeal arising from a construction accident where Dennis Armoneit, an employee of Superior Framing, fell from a roof due to the alleged negligent operation of a crane rented from Elliott Crane Service, Inc. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment, holding Elliott Crane vicariously liable for its crane operator and declaring an indemnity agreement between Elliott Crane and Fox Ridge Homes, Inc. (the general contractor) void. On appeal, the court reversed the finding of vicarious liability, determining that the crane operator might be a 'borrowed servant' of Fox Ridge or Superior Framing, thus requiring a factual determination. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that the indemnity provision was void as contrary to public policy under Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-123, irrespective of liability insurance. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Armoneit v. Elliott Crane Service, Inc. is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case concerns an appeal arising from a construction accident where Dennis Armoneit, an employee of Superior Framing, fell from a roof due to the alleged negligent operation of a crane rented from Elliott Crane Service, Inc. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment, holding Elliott Crane vicariously liable for its crane operator and declaring an indemnity agreement between Elliott Crane and Fox Ridge Homes, Inc. (the general contractor) void. On appeal, the court reversed the finding of vicarious liability, determining that the crane operator might be a 'borrowed servant' of Fox Ridge or Superior Framing, thus requiring a factual determination. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that the indemnity provision was void as contrary to public policy under Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-123, irrespective of liability insurance. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.