Shin Hyon-Su v. Maeda Pacific Corp. Tae Jo Corporation, Shin Hyon-Su v. Maeda Pacific Corp., and Tae Jo Corporation

Good Law
905 F.2d 302·1990 WL 75650·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 11, 199088-2975, 88-15095California3,116 words

Opinion

Opinion

Leavy, J.

Shin Hyon-Su (“Hyon-Su”) appeals from the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam’s affirmance of the dismissal of his action against Maeda Pacific Corporation (“Maeda”). The action was dismissed by the Superior Court of Guam on the grounds Hyon-Su’s exclusive remedy against Maeda was in workers’ compensation. Maeda cross-appeals from the Appellate Division’s reversal of the superior court’s grant of summary judgment on Hyon-Su’s intentional tort claim and its order remanding that claim to the trial court for further proceedings. We affirm as to the appeal and reverse as to the cross-appeal.

FACTS AND- PROCEEDINGS

Maeda is a construction company incorporated in Guam. On September 23, 1984, Maeda contracted with the Public Utility Agency of Guam to construct a collector and interceptor sewer system in Mangilao (hereinafter the “Dairy Road Project”). As general contractor, Maeda was required to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, tools and services necessary to perform and complete all work required for the construction project. Maeda thereafter entered into a subcontract with the Tae Jo Corporation (“Tae Jo”) for the excavation work and the digging of manhole…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.