Alabama’s Exclusive Remedy Rule

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Alabama, workers’ compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy against an employer for job-related injuries when those injuries are covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act.. Ala. Code §§ 25-5-52 and 25-5-53.

This means that an injured employee cannot sue her employer in tort (where the employee likely would be able to obtain monetary damages), such as by claiming that the employer’s negligence caused his injury. 

INJURIES COVERED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT

An injury is covered by the WCA if

1. The injury arises out of and in the course of employment;
2. The employer is subject to the WCA;
3. The employee is not excluded under the Act; and
4. The claim seeks recovery for personal injury or death.

INTENTIONAL INJURY EXCEPTION

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to injuries that the employer intentionally inflicted. An example is sexual harassment. In Alabama, however, hearing officers and courts apply the exception very narrowly. It is not enough for the employee to show that the employer acted negligently or recklessly.

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to lawsuits against third parties. For example, if an employee is injured by defective equipment manufactured by another company, the employee may still sue that other company.

FRAUD CLAIMS

The exclusive remedy rule does not bar claims based on the employer’s fraud related to the handling of the employee's workers’ compensation claim.

OUTRAGE CLAIMS AGAINST INSURERS

The tort of “outrage” is not barred by the exclusive remedy rule, according to Alabama courts. The employee, however, will have to show that the company acted intentionally and that its actions are so severe that they rise to the level of outrage. This requires showing:

1. The employer intentionally inflicted emotional distress or emotional distress would likely result from the conduct; and
2. The conduct was extreme and outrageous, causing severe distress.

DUAL CAPACITY DOCTRINE

An employee may sue his employer in tort for a work-related injury if the employer plays a second role (in addition to employer) which places on him additional obligations. An example is an employer that builds equipment and whose equipment injures the employee.

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE

In Alabama, an employee may sue her employer for retaliatory discharge. This is where the employee claims the employer fired her as reprisal for her filing of a workers’ compensation claim. Ala. Code §25-5-11.1.

EMPLOYERS THAT LACK COVERAGE

If the employer has not secured workers' compensation coverage, an injured employee may bring a civil suit against her employer.

SPECIAL EMPLOYERS The exclusive remedy rule extends to companies that borrow a worker from another employer. These companies who borrow employees are known as “special employers.” An example is where a manufacturing facility uses a worker who is employed by a staffing agency. The manufacturing facility is the special employer in that scenario. The staffing agency is the general employer. When a general employer lends an employee to a special employer, the special employer becomes liable for workers' compensation. It is also immune from liability for tort actions brought by the worker if:

1. The employee has made a contract of hire, express or implied, with the special employer;
2. The work being done is essentially that of the special employer; and
3. The special employer has the right to control the details of the work.

When all three of the above conditions are satisfied in relation to both employers, both employers are liable for workers' compensation.

RECENT CASES

Crenshaw v. Sonic Drive-in, SC-2024-0081 (Ala. 12/06/24)

A minor was injured at work. His father sued the company for negligence instead of filing a workers’ compensation claim. The employer argued the case was barred by the exclusive remedy provision. In response, the father contended that the exclusive remedy rule violates the Alabama constitution because it allows employers to opt out but does not allow employees to opt out. The Alabama Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the provision is constitutional and is within the legislature’s police powers.

Ex parte Midsouth Paving, Inc., and Christopher Nivert, No. SC-2022-0860 (Ala. 05/19/23)

An employee worked for a staffing agency. The agency assigned her to work at Midsouth Paving. The agency provided her a hardhat with “Midsouth Paving” printed on it. Midsouth supervised her on the jobsite. While working for Midsouth, a coworker drove his vehicle into the employee, severely injuring her leg. The injured employee sued Midsouth for negligence. The company asked the court to rule in its favor, arguing that the employee’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation. The Alabama Supreme Court agreed. It concluded that the injured worker was a special employee of Midsouth and that the exclusive‑remedy rule barred her tort claim

Find cases and more on the exclusive remedy rule across all U.S. jurisdictions on Simply Research

Share This Article: