Background
Rickey R. Norman worked for Premier AG Co-Op, Inc., delivering diesel fuel and gasoline to customers. In January 2022, he fell from a ladder while dispensing fuel into holding tanks at Jim Beam’s distillery in Clermont, Kentucky. Norman sued Beam for premises liability, alleging that Beam provided the ladder and that it fell because the ground was muddy and slick.
Beam sought summary judgment under Kentucky’s “up-the-ladder” workers’ compensation defense. It argued that fuel delivery was a regular and recurrent part of its bourbon and tourism operations, making Beam Norman’s statutory employer and therefore immune from tort liability. The Bullitt Circuit Court agreed and entered summary judgment for Beam. After the Court of Appeals initially reversed, the Kentucky Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Minova USA, Inc. v. Jolly.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals again reversed. It held that Beam was not a “contractor” under KRS 342.610(2)(b) because transporting and delivering fuel was not a regular or recurrent part of Beam’s bourbon-production or tourism business. Although Beam repeatedly purchased fuel and used it in its operations, the relevant inquiry was not merely whether deliveries occurred regularly or benefited the business. The work also had to be of a kind that Beam or similar businesses would normally perform, or be expected to perform, through employees.
Beam’s employees had never transported the fuel, and hazardous-fuel transportation required specialized licenses and regulatory compliance that Beam did not possess. Distilleries would ordinarily hire specialized fuel-transportation companies rather than use their own employees for that work. The court also distinguished cases involving sanitation, emissions testing, and utility-line tree trimming because those services were legally mandated for the businesses involved, while Norman’s fuel-delivery work was not mandated for Beam’s industry.
Because Beam failed to establish statutory-employer status, it was not entitled to workers’ compensation immunity from Norman’s premises-liability claim. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Repeated or operationally important work is not automatically “regular or recurrent” work under Kentucky’s statutory-employer test.
- Courts must consider whether the business or similar businesses would ordinarily perform the contracted work with employees, including whether they possess the necessary skills, equipment, and regulatory authorization.
- A premises owner does not obtain up-the-ladder immunity merely because an outside vendor regularly delivers goods that the owner uses in its operations.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the reach of Kentucky’s up-the-ladder defense for premises owners that contract with specialized delivery providers. A company cannot transform every recurring vendor delivery into subcontracted work merely by showing that the delivered product is important to its business.
The ruling also reinforces that the Workers’ Compensation Act’s statutory-employer provisions are intended to ensure worker coverage, not to provide premises owners with broad immunity from ordinary tort claims brought by outside delivery workers.