Could the widow sue Maine Tavern over her husband's death in a beer-fueled dispute?

What do you think?

Scarborough, ME (WorkersCompensation.com) – The exclusivity provision in Maine's workers' compensation law prohibits an injured worker or agent from suing an employer after receiving workers' compensation benefits. One case involves whether that provision is triggered by a settlement and how the exclusivity rule might affect lawsuits against bars for alcohol-related deaths.

Two contractors, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Fama, worked in Maine for Sanford Contracting. At the end of the day, they drank several beers in the hotel parking lot that their employer had organized for them. They went to a Bob's, LLC tavern and drank more alcohol. Back in the hotel parking lot, they get into an argument with each other. Mr. Fama fell, hit his head on the pavement and died.

Fama's widow settled with Sanford Contracting for $400,000 in workers' compensation. She then sued Bob's LLC and Clarke for wrongful death.

Bob's asked the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act barred the widow from suing the case for tort.

The Maine Supreme Court took up the case. It held that the exclusivity provision of Maine's workers' compensation law prevents a plaintiff from receiving workers' compensation benefits and then suing in tort.

The court also explained that under the “named and retained” provisions of Maine's Liquor Liability Act, a lawsuit cannot proceed against a bar if the intoxicated person being sued is no longer named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

---

Did the exclusivity provision prevent the widow from suing the tavern that served her husband?

A. No. A comparison does not trigger the exclusivity regulation.

B. Yes. Since she could no longer sue Sanford, she could no longer sue her husband's colleague.

---

If you chose B, you agreed with the court in Fama v. Bob's LLC, No. Cum-23-409 (Maine 09/24/24)4, which ruled that the workers' compensation agreement precluded hearing the widow's case against Bob .

The court noted that the widow of Mr. Fama's employer, Sanford, had received severance pay. As a result, the exclusivity clause prevented them from suing Sanford for additional damages. As a co-employer, Clarke was in the same situation as Sanford and therefore could not be sued either.

“Because Clarke, as an employee of Mr. Fama, is in the same situation as Sanford under Section 104 of the MWCA, Ms. Fama cannot sue Clarke,” the court wrote.

Because she could not sue Clarke under the named and retained provisions of the MLLA, she could not sue Bob's.