Could Murdered Funeral Home Manager’s Spouse Sue Company for Safety Lapses?

What Do You Think?

The exclusive remedy rule bars most injured workers from suing their employer, or their deceased spouse’s employer, in tort. A case involving a general manager for a funeral home company addressed whether that rule applied in the case of a homicide. 

The general manager was working at one of the company’s locations when the company told him to fire one of its employees. The GM allegedly expressed concern about doing that, given the employee’s history of threatening his coworkers and being intoxicated at work. Still, he fired him. 

The fired employee then followed the GM to another of the company’s locations. Before the GM could leave his vehicle, the employee shot him several times, killing him. 

The decedent’s wife sued the company for wrongful death. She asserted that the company was negligent and careless because it failed to implement safety and security precautions at its facility, which led to the killing.

The funeral home company asked the court to dismiss the case. It provided the court a copy of a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board awarding the wife death benefits in connection with the incident.

Normally, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy for a worker injured in the course of employment.

Was the employee’s wife entitled to sue the company for wrongful death?

A. Yes. An exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the killer obviously acted intentionally, having followed the GM and shot him several times.

B. No. The fact that the company provided workers’ compensation coverage to its employees and that the wife claimed the company was negligent worked against her.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Hamer v. FPG America, LLC., No. 2022-06699 (N.Y. App. Div. 02/05/25), which held that the decedent’s wife could not sue the company.

The court explained that under the Workers' Compensation Law, an employee's recovery of workers' compensation benefits is his or her exclusive remedy against an employer for injuries sustained in the course of employment.

Here, the company had workers’ compensation insurance and the spouse received benefits pursuant to that coverage. Accordingly, she was barred from proceeding with a negligence lawsuit against the company. Her only legal remedy against the company was to seek workers’ compensation benefits, which she did.

While an employee or surviving spouse might be able to sue based on the company engaging in an intentional tort, the spouse provided no evidence that the company acted intentionally. In fact, she merely asserted in her complaint that the company was careless and negligent.

The court granted the funeral home’s request to dismiss the case.

Share This Article: