{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f38\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f39\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f41\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f42\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f43\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f44\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f45\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f46\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;
\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;
\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid8874087 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid8874087 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid786627\rsid2626530\rsid7088612\rsid8874087\rsid9508377}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info
{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr7\min47}{\version4}{\edmins2}{\nofpages8}{\nofwords3232}{\nofchars18423}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}
{\nofcharsws21612}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120
\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot7088612 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid7088612 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7088612 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7088612 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid7088612 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid7088612\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid7088612 
Gibbs v. Holmes et al,}{\fs20\insrsid7088612  Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid7088612 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2626530 8}}}{\fs20\insrsid7088612  of 14
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7088612 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-14\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid2626530 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom14\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize14\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\fs20\insrsid7088612 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7088612 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-224\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid7088612 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 GLENN W. GIBBS and
\par AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO.,}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par Plaintiffs-Appellants
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 vs.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 LEE HOLMES, JOAN HOLMES, and
\par AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO.,}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 OPINION}{\insrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Filed:}{\b\insrsid2626530  }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 June 1, 2001}{\insrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Cite as: 2001 Guam 11}{\insrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA00-022
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV1270-97}{\insrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and Submitted on May 9, 2001
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\ul\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\ul\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Glenn W. Gibbs}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 :
\par Robert L. Keogh, Esq.
\par Seth Foreman, Esq.
\par Law Office of Keogh and Forman
\par Suite 105, C&A Prof. Bldg.
\par 251 Martyr St.
\par P.O. Box GZ
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Appearing for Defendants-Appellants}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\ul\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Lee and Joan Holmes}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 :
\par John B. Maher, Esq.
\par Michael D. Flynn, Jr. Esq.
\par McKeown-Vernier-Price-Maher
\par A Joint Venture of McKeown Price, LLP
\par }{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 and Vernier & Maher, LLP
\par 115 Hesler Pl., Ground Fl.
\par Gov. Joseph Flores Bldg.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \trowd \irow0\irowband0
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\ul\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Appearing for Interventor Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\ul\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 American Home Assurance Co.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 :
\par Thomas C. Sterling, Esq.
\par Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson
\par 1008 PNB
\par 238 Archbishop F. C. Flores St.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560
\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 BEFORE: BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Chief Justice, PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Associate Justice, and F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice.}{\insrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 CARBULLIDO, J.:}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [1]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab Glenn W. Gibbs (}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Gibbs}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 ) sustained injuries from a slip-and-fall accident which occurred at his work premises.}{\insrsid2626530 
 }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 As a result of these injuries, Gibbs received worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation benefits from his employer, Western Systems, Inc.}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Subsequent to receiving worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation benefits, Gibbs filed a negligence action in the Superior Court of Guam against Joan and Lee Holmes (}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Holmeses}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 ) and American Home Assurance Company for damages sustained in the accident.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
At the time of the accident, the Holmeses were the owners of the premises as well as officers and directors of Western Systems, Inc.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Holmeses on the ground that the exclusive remedy provision of the Guam Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation statute barred the instant action.}{
\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Gibbs filed a motion for reconsideration which the trial court denied.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 This appeal followed.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
We agree with the trial court and therefore affirm.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 I.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [2]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab The Defendants-Appellees, the Holmeses, purchased a two-story commercial building (}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 premises}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 ) located in Hag\'e5t\'f1a}{
\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in October of 1985.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 On December 18, 1986, the Holmeses leased the premises to Western Systems, Inc. (}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Western}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 ), a corporation in which the Holmeses were owners, directors, officers, and employees.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 West
ern possessed, maintained, controlled, and occupied the premises from December 18, 1986 through January 8, 1997.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
As directors, officers, and employees of Western, the Holmeses were responsible for the day-to-day management of the business, property, operations, and affairs of Western.}{\insrsid7088612 
\par }{\insrsid2626530\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Plaintiff-Appellant, Gibbs, began working for Western on December 2, 1992.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
On January 8, 1997, Gibbs slipped and fell on the exterior stairway of the premises and was injured. 
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [3]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab At the time of Gibbs}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  accident, Western had worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation insurance coverage underwritten by American Home Assurance Company (}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 American}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 ).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Gibbs filed a claim for under the Guam Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Law, Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9109 }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 et seq. }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 (1996), and received worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s compensation benefits for lost wages and medical treatment from American.
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [4]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab On September 17, 1997, Gibbs filed an action in the Superior Court seeking damages as a result of the slip-and-fall under the theory of negligence.}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Gibbs named the Holmeses and }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 John Doe Insurance Co.}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  as defendants.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Gibbs subsequently ame
nded his Complaint naming, as defendants, American in its capacity as the Holmeses}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  general liability insurer.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
American filed a Complaint in Intervention against the Holmeses and American in its capacity as liability insurer, seeking recovery for any and all worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s compensation benefits paid to Gibbs.
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [5]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab 
The Holmeses sought summary judgment on the ground that the triple net commercial lease with Western absolved them from liability for injuries on the premises after Western took possession.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The trial c
ourt denied this motion for summary judgment citing factual disputes.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The Holmeses subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the court also denied.
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [6]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab The Holmeses then filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that as officers and employees of Western at the time of Gibbs}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  injury, they were personally immune from civil liability for negligence, and that Gibbs was limited to the exclusive remedy of worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s compensation benefits.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\super\insrsid7088612 1}{
\fs20\insrsid7088612 American did not oppose this motion in the lower court.}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 On November 9, 1999, the trial court granted the motion, accepting the Holmeses}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  legal argument. 
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [7]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab On January 14, 2000, Gibbs filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the Holmeses}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 status as defendants for the exclusivity of workers compensation defense should be determined at the time of the tortious act or omission, rather than at the time of the injury.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
The court rejected this argument and denied Gibbs}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  motion on July 11, 2000.
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [8]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab The lower court filed and entered Judgment in favor of the Holmeses on August 11, 2000, dismissing the negligence action against all defendants.}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Gibbs filed a timely Notice of Appeal on September 8, 2000.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 II.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [9]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab This Court has jurisdiction over the appeal of final judgments of the Superior Court of Guam pursuant to Title 7 of the Guam Code Annotated }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  3107 and 3108(a) (1994).}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 III.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [10]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab 
At issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Holmeses on the ground that Gibbs was precluded from maintaining the instant action by virtue of the exclusive remedy provision of the Guam Worker}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Law.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 We review a grant of summary judgment }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 de novo}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 .
}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See Villalon v. Hawaiian Rock Products, Inc.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 2001 Guam 5, }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  7 (citing }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Kim v. Hong}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 1997 Guam 11, }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  5) (additional citations omitted).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Summary judgment is proper }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any materi
al fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [11]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab We must further determine whether the trial court erred in denying the Appellant}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Motion for Recons
ideration.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 We review a denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See Merchant v. Nanyo Realty, Inc.}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 1998 Guam 26, }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  6.
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [12]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab To the extent that the parties dispute the interpretation of provisions of the Guam Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s Compensation Law, we review the issue }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 de novo}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 .}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See Villalon}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 2001 Guam 5 at }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 cf. Mudrovich v. Soto}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
, 617 N.W.2d 242, 245 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (reviewing }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 de novo }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 the issue of whether the plaintiff}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s claim is subject to the Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision).
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [13]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab The Guam Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Law is set forth in Chapter 9 of Title 22 of the Guam Code Annotated.}{
\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 9101 }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 et seq}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 .; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 see also Villalon}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 2001 Guam 5 at }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  10.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Under the law, a person hired in Guam is entitled to compensation under the laws of Guam if he }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 receives a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9104(c) (1996).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Further, every employer is 
liable to pay compensation to his employees regardless of fault as to the cause of the injury.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9105 (1996).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Employer liability under the Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Law is }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9106 (1996); }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 see also Villalon}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 2001 Guam 5 at }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  10; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Shim v. Vert Constr. Co.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , Civ. No. 91-00019A, 1991 WL 255832, *2 (D. Guam App. Div. Nov. 18, 1991) (stating that }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation is the exclusive remedy for accidental injuries}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 ).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [14]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab The statute preserves the right to sue third parties for injuries sustained in the course of employment in addition to receiving worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation benefits.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9134 (1996).}{\b\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Section 9134 provides:}{\insrsid7088612 
\par }{\insrsid2626530\charrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Compensation for Injuries where third persons are liable.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
When an injury for which compensation is payable under some person other than the employer a legal liability to pay dam
ages in respect thereto, the injured employee a legal liability to pay damages in respect thereto, the injured employee may claim compensation under this Title and, at his option, may also obtain damages from a proceed at law against the other person in o
rder to recover damages.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Id}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 .}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
However, section 9135 makes clear that the right to sue third parties for injuries does not encompass the right to sue a co-employee, officer, agent, or director of the employer, and that worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy for injuries sustained by the negligence of another person in the same employ as the injured employee.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9135 (1996).}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Section 9135 provides:
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Nothing contained in }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
9134 of this title shall be deemed to create a cause of action by an injured employee against any co-employee, officer, agent or director of the employer.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
The right to compensation for benefits under the Worker}{\i\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s Compensation Law of Guam shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee when he is injured, . . . by the negligence of any other person or persons in the same employ}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
; provided, that this provision shall not affect the liability of a person other than an officer or employee of the employer.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Id}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 . (emphasis added).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Thus, under the Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s Compensation Law, immunity from suit extends to employees and officers of the employer.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The test for whether the exclusive remedy provision applies is whether the plaintiff}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s injuries are due to the negligence of another person or persons }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the same employ.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See id}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 .
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [15]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab Thus, we must determine what is meant by the language }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the same employ.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Because the Worker}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Law does not specifically address this issue, resort must be made to case law interpreting the language of section 9135.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
The Appellate Division of the District Court has previously relied on New York precedent in interpreting Guam}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s compensation statutes.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See Shim}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 1991 WL 255832, at *2.}{\cs15\super\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid7088612 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid7088612 We note that the Appellate Division has previously declared that Guam}{
\fs20\insrsid8874087 '}{\fs20\insrsid7088612 s Worker}{\fs20\insrsid8874087 '}{\fs20\insrsid7088612 s Compensation Law was adopted from New York.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid7088612 See Shim}{\fs20\insrsid7088612 
, 1991 WL 255832, at *2.  This court has never expressed an opinion as to the source of the Guam Worker}{\fs20\insrsid8874087 '}{\fs20\insrsid7088612 s Compensation Law.}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
While this court considers Appellate Division cases to be persuasive authority, we are not at all bound by the Appellate Division}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s reliance on New York case law.}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See People v. Quenga}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 1997 Guam 6, }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 13 n. 4.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Thus, to the extent that the New York worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensatio
n statutes contain provisions that are either identical or substantially similar to Guam}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s statutes, we find New York law to be persuasive.}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Cf. Holmes v. Territorial Land Use Comm}{\i\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 n}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 1998 Guam 8, }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  6 (agreeing with a Ninth Circuit case}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s reasoning that because Guam}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s mandamus statute was adopted from California, California cases are persuasive).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
However, we do not hesitate to find guidance in the case law of those jurisdictions that have adopted worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation statutes that are substantially similar to Guam}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s statutes.
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [16]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab The New York co-employee exclusive remedy statute contains language similar to that contained in 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9135.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The New York statute limits an injured employee to worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation benefits if injured by the negligence of another }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
in the same employ.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  N.Y. WORK. COMP. LAW }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  29(6) (McKinney 1993).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
New York courts have determined that immunity under section 29(6) }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
is limited to acts or omissions of the tortfeasor within the scope of his or her employment.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 Cusano v. Staff}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 595 N.Y.S.2d 248, 249 (App. Div. 1993).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The rationale behind this interpretation is that }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [c]oemployee immunity is only justified when the tortfeasor}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s conduct is within the course of employment; otherwise, the coemployee}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s employment status is unconnected to the risk of injury to the fellow-worker from . . . [a work-related] accident.
}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Id}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 . (citing 2A Larson, Workmen}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation, }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  72.23); }{
\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 see also Sauve v. Winfree}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 907 P.2d 7, 11 (Alaska 1995).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Thus, according to New York case law, the statutory language }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the same employ}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  essentially refers to tortious acts committed by another person acting }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 within the scope of employment}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 .
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [17]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab Indiana}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s compensation statute is also similar to Guam}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s statute.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 In }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Seiler v. Grow}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 507 N.E.2d 628 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987), the issue was whether the plaintiff}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s injuries were within the exclusive remedy provision of the worker}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation act.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The Indiana statute allowed the injured employee to receive worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation benefits if the injury arose out of and in the course of plaintiff}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s employment.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
See id.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  at 630 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Further, the statute allowed the plaintiff to sue third parties in tort, but barred an action against persons }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the same employ.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See id}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 . (citations omitted).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Thus, in determining whether the plaintiff was allowed to maintain the negligence action against the defendant, the determinative issue was whether the defendant was }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the same employ}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 as the plaintiff.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See id}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 .}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The court determined that a defendant works }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the same employ}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  as the plaintiff if he was acting in the course of employment.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See id.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  at 630-31.}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The court emphasized that }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [t]he worker}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation act is not designed to insulate co-employees from liability for act which are not in the course of employment,}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  thus, the relevant inquiry is whether the defendant acted }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the course of employment,}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 and if so, then he may claim immunity from suit pursuant to the exclusive remedy provision of the worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation law.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See id}
{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  at 631; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 see also Utah Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Manning}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
, 985 P.2d 243, 250 (Utah 1999) (recognizing that immunity only attaches to a co-employee if the co-employee was acting }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the course of his employment}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 ) (citation omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [18]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab If an officer or director of a corporation is specifically charged with ensuring a safe workplace, the exercise or failure to exercise that duty is an 
act or omission which is distinctly within the scope and course of employment.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Parrinello v. Mancuso}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 674 N.Y.S.2d 484, 485 (App. Div. 1998) (recognizing that the exclusive remedy provision which bars actions for injuries caused by the negligence of another }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the same employ}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  allows an officer of a corporation to claim immunity from suit for negligently failing to maintain a safe workplace); }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 see also Cusano}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 595 N
.Y.S.2d at 249-50.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Therefore,}{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
because the Holmeses were officers of Western and were specifically charged with maintaining a safe workplace, Gibbs was injured by the negligence of another }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 in the same employ,}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 thus triggering the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Law.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 We hold that under 22 GCA }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9135, the Holmeses are immune from liability in their capacity as }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
officers}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  of Western.
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [19]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab The determinative issue on appeal is whether the Holmeses can be sued in their individual capacities, as landowners, notwithstanding their status as officers of Western.}{
\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Gibbs argues that such a suit is maintainable under the }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 dual persona}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  doctrine.}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 dual persona}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 doctrine is a judicially created mechanism that allows a plaintiff to sue his employer for work-related injuries despite the exclusive remedy provision of worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation law.}{
\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The doctrine has been described in }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Hatch v. Lido Co. of New England}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 609 A.2d 1155 (Me. 1992), as follows:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Under the dual persona doctrine, . . . an otherwise exempt employer (or officer) may become liable to suit }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
as a third party}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 if }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  and only if }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  he possesses a second persona so completely independent from and unrelated to his status as employer that by established standards the law recognizes [the employer] as a separate legal person.}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  . . . [T]he dual persona doctrine applies only when }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 the second set of obligations [are] independent of the defendant}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s obligations as an employer . . . [I]t must be possible to say that the duty arose }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 solely}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  from the }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 non-employer}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 persona. . . .}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The duties }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 must be totally separate from and unrelated to those of employment.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Id.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  at 1156 (quoting 2A A. Larson, }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The Law of Workmen}{\i\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  72.81 (1989)).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
The }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 dual persona}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  doctrine has been extended to allow for suits against co-employees or officers of the employer.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See e.g. Cusano}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 595 N.Y.S.2d at 250.
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [20]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab Gibbs argues that the Holmeses, as landowners and lessees, had the duty under }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Camacho v. Du Sung Corp.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
, 121 F.3d 1315, 1317 (9th Cir. 1997), to transfer the property in a safe condition.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Gibbs claims that for breach of this duty he is entitled to maintain a suit against the Holmeses as }{
\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 landowners}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  notwithstanding 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 9135.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 We disagree.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [21]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab Determining whether a landowner, who is also an officer of the employer, is entitled to immunity from a negligence action under the exclusive remedy provision of the worker}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation law depends on whether the landowner}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s negligent acts are in the course of employment; that is, whether the landowner}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s acts are }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 incidental}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 to employment, as opposed to actions taken independent of the landowner}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s status as officer of the corporation.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See Sauve}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 907 P.2d at 13; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 see also Cusano}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 595 N.Y.S.2d at 250.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The landowner is immune from li
ability if the }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 additional duties [arising from the landlord}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s obligation] are }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 inextricably intertwined }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 with those of the . . . [corporate officer] status.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Sauve}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 907 P.2d at 13 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [22]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab Case law indicates that a corporate officer who is in possession and control of the premises has the same duty to keep the premises safe as that of a landowner.}{
\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See id.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 ; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Parrinello}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 674 N.Y.S.2d at 485; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Cusano}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 595 N.Y.S.2d at 250; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Sylfa v. Stupnick}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 658 N.Y.S.2d 69, 70 (App. Div. 1997).}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
The duties merge and are indistinguishable.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See Parrinello}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 674 N.Y.S.2d at 485; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Cusano}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
, 595 N.Y.S.2d at 250.}{\i\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Because a corporate officer}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s violation of his duty to maintain a safe workplace is an act that is }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 incidental}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  to employment, the violation of this exact same duty as a landowner is also an act that is }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 incidental}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  to employment.}{
\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Thus, the corporate officer cannot be seen as having a different }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 persona}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 as landowner and the injured party is therefore precluded from maintaining a negligence action by the exclusive remedy provision of the worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation statute.}{\insrsid2626530  }
{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See Cusano}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 595 N.Y.S.2d at 250;}{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  see also Parrinello}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 647 N.Y.S.2d}{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 at 485; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 see Hatch}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 , 609 A.2d at 1156-57; }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Herbolsheimer v. SMS Holding Co.}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
, 608 N.W.2d 487, 493-94, 498 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
\par }{\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [23]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab Guam}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s Compensation Law specifically preserves the right to sue third parties.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 See }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9134.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Thus, if the Holmeses }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 as landowners}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 were a separate legal identity from their identity as officers of Western, then the Holmeses }{\i\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 as landowners }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 would be considered third-parties and thus amenable to suit.}{
\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Gibbs argues that
 because the alleged negligent act occurred in the transferring of the property, the Holmeses were acting outside the scope of their roles as employees, directors, and officers of Western.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 We disagree.}{
\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 As set forth previously, the Holmeses}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  duty to deliv
er a safe premises is the same duty the Holmeses possessed as officers of Western in that both duties seek to minimize the risk of injury to the employee due to the condition of the premises.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
The alleged negligent act of transferring the property in an unsafe condition in 1986 alleges a breach of the exact same duty the Holmeses had as officers and employees of Western.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Therefore, the Holmeses, as landowners, do not have a separate legal identity as that of corporate officers thus barring application of the }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 dual persona}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  doctrine.}{\insrsid2626530  }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Accordingly, Gibbs is barred from bringing the instant negligence action against the Holmeses by the exclusive remedy provision of the Guam Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
s Compensation Law, 22 GCA }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9135.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The trial court}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s grant of summary judgment for the Holmeses was proper.}{\insrsid7088612 
\par }{\insrsid2626530\charrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [24]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab Finally, Gibbs argues that the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Reconsideration.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Gibbs contends that reconsideration is necessary because the trial court erred in looking to the time of the injury in determining the availability of the exclusive remedy defense.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Gibbs argues that the relevant time period is the time of the Holmeses}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  negligent act of turning over the premises in 1986.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
We find that the issue Gibbs raises lacks merit.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 The fact that the alleged negligent act occurred in 1986 is of no consequence in the instant case.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
As stated previously, a landowner}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s immunity for negligence under the exclusive remedy provision attaches as long as the landowner}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s negligent act or omission constitutes a breach of the same duties held as officers or employees of the employer corporation, and are thereby }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 incidental}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 to employment.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Any other rule would contravene the purpose of the Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Law to limit an employer or co-employee}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s exposure to liability for negligent acts undertaken while in the course of employment.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 IV.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\b\insrsid2626530 
\par }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 [25]}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 \tab The exclusive remedy provision of the Guam Worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s Compensation Law, 22 GCA }{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  9135, limits a injured worker to worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensation benefits for injuries caused by the negligence of another person acting in the course of employment.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
Section 9135 protects a corporate officer from suit for injuries caused by failing to provide a safe workplace.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Immunity from negligence liability under section 9135 extends t
o a landowner, who is also a corporate officer, if the duties as landlord are identical to the duties as corporate officer.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Because the Holmeses}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{
\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  duty as landowners was identical to their duty as corporate officers, Gibbs is limited to worker}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s compensati
on benefits and is precluded from maintaining the instant negligence action against the Holmeses.}{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Accordingly, we }{\b\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 AFFIRM}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 
 both the trial court}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Holmeses and the trial court}{\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 s denial of Gibbs}{
\insrsid8874087\charrsid2626530 '}{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530  Motion for Reconsideration.}{\insrsid2626530 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR.\tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid2626530  }{\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 Associate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab \tab Associate Justice}{\insrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid2626530 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2626530 {\insrsid7088612\charrsid2626530 BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ
\par Chief Justice
\par }}