LEGAL UPDATES
LEGAL UPDATES

The Dual Persona Doctrine: Defining The Boundaries of Employer Immunity in Workers' Compensation

By Ross A. Bridges, VBM Attorney

The legal landscape of workers’ compensation and subrogation continues to evolve with several landmark rulings issued for multiple states in 2025. The following cases involve judgments based on the “dual persona doctrine” (also called “dual capacity”).

What is the Dual Persona Doctrine?
The dual persona doctrine is a legal exception to workers' compensation laws, allowing an injured worker to sue their employer in tort (like for negligence) if the employer acted in a separate, distinct legal role (a second "persona") beyond just being an employer, such as a product manufacturer or service provider. This lets the employee bypass the usual "exclusive remedy" rule of workers' comp by suing the employer's other identity, like suing a company as a product maker for a defective tool, not just as the employer who provided it. (It’s important to note that most U.S states and jurisdictions do not recognize the dual persona doctrine, and those that do only allow it as a narrow exception in certain cases.)

Washington
The case of Richardson v. Callahan reinforced the strength of employer immunity by rejecting the "dual persona doctrine". The court ruled that the estate (Richardson) could not sue company owners (Callahan) in their capacity as landowners, particularly where the land was used solely for business operations, because that role was too closely intertwined with the employment relationship. This reminds us that bypassing the workers' compensation bar requires a legally distinct duty that is not just factually separate from the job itself.

Connecticut
In Conti v. McGinnis, the employee (Conti) brought a lawsuit against the owner of an LLC (McGinnis), who was also a fellow employee, following a work-related motor vehicle accident. The court found that if the owner (Conti) performed field-level duties and was exposed to the same risks as their staff, they can be sued personally as a "fellow employee" under the motor vehicle exception. This case highlights the importance of documenting an owner's day-to-day involvement in operations to determine if they are truly a detached executive or a co-worker in the eyes of the law.

Louisiana
In Goodley v. Supreme Rice, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff (Supreme Rice), dismissing tort claims involving a federal grain inspector (Goodley) who was injured by a forklift at the company’s facility. Goodley was barred from suing Supreme Rice because her work was deemed integral to the company's export contract, making the company her statutory employer.

West Virginia
In the case of Davis v. Townsend Tree Service, the central issue was whether the parent company (Davis) could claim workers' compensation immunity as an "agent" of its subsidiary (Townsend) or if it could be held liable as a third-party tortfeasor. The ruling established that Davis loses its administrative immunity if it exercises direct operational control over safety protocols and training. This shows us that a parent company’s immunity is not guaranteed by its corporate relationship to a subsidiary.

If you or someone you know has any questions involving the dual personal doctrine or statutory employer defenses, please do not hesitate to reach out to me at Ross.Bridges@vbmlaw.com or contact our office at 573-777-4488.

Published: January 28, 2026

Bad Faith Litigation in Work Comp – but not what you’d think

By Ross A. Bridges, VBM Attorney

Article written January 25, 2023

Attempts at pursuing a bad faith lawsuit against a workers' compensation insurer by an injured worker have been attempted many times over the years. They have, however, been routinely denied by the higher courts.  Furthermore, there are statutory protections for workers' compensation insurers for these types of bad faith actions.  That said, a workers' compensation insurance carrier may not be immune from a bad-faith action by its excess carrier.

In the case of United Fire and Casualty Company v. Advantage Workers' Compensation Insurance Company, the excess carrier sued the primary insurer alleging that the primary could have, but failed to, settle a claim against it for the primary insurer’s policy limit.  The excess carrier further alleged that this failure wrongfully caused the excess carrier damage because the claim was subsequently settled only after the primary and excess carrier agreed to pay double the primary insurer's limits.

This case was brought in the federal court for the Western District of Missouri, but the federal court applied Missouri law in its analysis and Order.  The court held that an excess insurer may assert a subrogation claim against a primary insurer if the primary insurer wrongfully refuses to settle a claim and if that refusal increases the amount the excess carrier is ultimately required to pay.  The court went on, however, to conclude that the primary carrier never actually had an opportunity to settle its claim within policy limits.  It appears that the claimant continued a demand in excess of the primary carrier's limits.  Furthermore, there was no evidence that the primary carrier ever had a reasonable opportunity to settle within its policy limits.

This case shows that a worker’s compensation insurance carrier, self-insured trust or self-insured employer is not absolutely immune from a bad faith lawsuit. Although situations may be rare, there is at least the possibility that such an entity could be sued by its excess carrier for failure to resolve a case within its underlying policy limits. Also, it is important to note that a primary carrier could be held in bad faith either by settling a claim that is in excess of the policy limit or by suffering a judgment by a court that exceeds the primary carrier's policy limits.

It may be helpful to consider when negotiating to settle a workers' compensation claim that has permanent and total disability or an expansive future medical potential to remember that any actions that are not supported by legitimate defenses could result in an action by an excess carrier for defending a claim or refusing to settle a claim in bad faith. For example, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where worker’s compensation carrier offers settlement money for a minimal injury only, but later suffers a permanent and total disability award with lifetime medical. Such an injury could exceed the primary limits for many policies subjecting an excess carrier to exposure. If you have any questions about a case or additional tips to prevent any type of action for bad faith by an excess carrier, do not hesitate to contact our office for advice.

If you have any questions about workers' compensation, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.

vbmlaw.com   |   (573) 777-4488  |   kristin@vbmlaw.com