Appeal of Longchamps Electric, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtThayer, J.
Longchamps Electric, Inc. (Longchamps) and its insurer, Hanover Insurance Co., appeal the decision of the compensation appeals board (board) that Thomas Pratte was an employee of Longchamps at the time of his work-related injury and is thus entitled to workers’ compensation benefits from Longchamps’ insurer. Longchamps argues that the board incorrectly applied the borrowed servant doctrine in determining that Pratte was its employee, and not the servant of Mikol Electrical Services and Controls Corp. (Mikol), at the time of the injury. For the following reasons, we affirm.
The facts of this…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kowalski v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
- George N. Vanterpool, Marjorie Vanterpool, His Wife v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Bourette v. Dresser Industries, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
- Walter J. Maynard v. Kenova Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1980
- Barajas v. USA Petroleum Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- In re City Cab of Manchester, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
- Singh v. Therrien Management Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1995
- Union Light & Power Co. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Normand Dumais, Jr., et al. v. United States of America, et al.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2023
- Samantha Young, et al. v. Michael Doucette, et al.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.