Legal Opinion

Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc.

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1983No. 16216-PRPublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FELDMAN, Justice.

Plaintiffs Mason and Young claim they were injured while working for Cimetta Construction Company (Cimetta), a contractor engaged in erection of a new building for Environmental Air Products (EAP). Plaintiffs brought a tort action against EAP and others. In defense, EAP argued that it was plaintiffs’ employer by operation of law (a “statutory employer” 1 under A.R.S. § 23-902(B)), and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of A.R.S. §§ 23-906 and 23-1022, which provide that absent rejection of compensation coverage before injury, workmen’s compensation is an injured…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Novenson v. Spokane Culvert & Fabricating Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Laffoon v. Bell & Zoller Coal Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Word v. Motorola, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1971
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1933

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Stover v. Lakeland Square Owners Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1989
  2. Word v. Motorola, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Anton v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984
  4. Bennett v. Industrial Com'n of UtahUtah Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Pinter Construction Co. v. FrisbyUtah Supreme Court · 1984

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API