Case: Schubert v. Target Stores, Inc., No. 08-921, 2/26/09

Facts: J.B. Hunt Transport had a contractual agreement with Target Stores for Hunt’s drivers to transport Target’s goods. Part of the agreement required Hunt to provide workers’ compensation coverage in the event that one of Hunt’s employees became injured while transporting Target’s goods.

Roger Schubert, a tractor-trailer driver for J.B. Hunt Transport, was assigned to drive to a Target distribution center in Maumelle, where he picked up bales of cardboard boxes. Next, he drove the load to an International Paper facility in Mansfield, La.

As Schubert opened the trailer doors, a 1,000-pound bale of cardboard fell onto him, and injured him. Schubert, an Oklahoma resident, filed a workers’ compensation claim in Oklahoma and won benefits.

Next, he filed a negligence claim against Target Stores.

Procedural History:

The Pulaski County Circuit Court first granted Target’s motion for summary judgment after finding that Louisiana’s exclusive remedy doctrine barred the suit, but the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded the rule after determining that Arkansas law applied to the case.

The Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, J.B. Hunt’s insurer for the agreement, filed a motion to intervene that the trial court granted.

Next, the carrier filed a “Complaint in Intervention,” stating that under Oklahoma law, Schubert could:

“elect whether to take compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, or to pursue his remedy against (the third party tortfeasor)” and “if he elects to take compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, the cause of action against such other shall be assigned to the insurance carrier liable for the payment of such compensation.”

The circuit court granted Target Stores’ motion for a directed verdict, and Schubert appealed. The circuit court did not mention the intervening insurance company, or its complaint, in the order.

Analysis:

The state Supreme Court began its analysis by explaining that the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure require appeals to rise from final orders. In the past, the high court has also concluded that “an order that fails to address an intervenor’s claim is not a final order.”

The justices pointed out that the order was not a final order because the trial court failed to mention the intervenor, or their complaint. Therefore, the order could not be appealed.

The high court also pointed out that Schubert’s appellate brief did not comply with the high court’s rules, and was missing relevant portions of trial court testimony.

Disposition: Appeal dismissed without prejudice.