Clarification of “Unprovoked Physical Aggression” Exception to Idaho’s Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Rule

Introduction

Arellano v. Sunrise Homes, Inc. (Idaho Supreme Court, May 19, 2025) addresses the interplay between Idaho’s workers’ compensation exclusive‐remedy statute (Idaho Code § 72-209) and an injured worker’s attempt to sue in tort under the “unprovoked physical aggression” exception. Saul Arellano, a roofing subcontractor injured on a frosty roof, sued his statutory employer, Sunrise Homes, for negligence and negligence per se after receiving compensation benefits. He claimed Sunrise Homes knew the hazard of working without fall protection and consciously disregarded it—a theory he argued fit within the statutory exception. The district court granted summary judgment for Sunrise Homes, and the Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Idaho Supreme Court held that:

The district court erred in applying a “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard at summary judgment—but that error did not require reversal because no genuine dispute of material fact existed.
Arellano presented no evidence that Sunrise Homes had knowledge injury or death was “substantially likely to occur” if fall protection was omitted.
The 2020 amendments to Idaho Code § 72-209(3) did not lower the plaintiff’s burden or codify a broader “conscious disregard” test (as articulated in Gomez v. Crookham Co.).
Summary judgment was properly entered, and the exclusive remedy rule barred Arellano’s negligence claims.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Gomez v. Crookham Co. (166 Idaho 249 (2020)): Defined the high bar for unprovoked physical aggression; discussed “consciously disregarded knowledge,” but was later superseded by statute.
Clover v. Crookham Co. (561 P.3d 875 (2024)): Held that mere OSHA noncompliance did not prove actual knowledge that an injury was substantially likely.
Marek v. Hecla, Ltd. (161 Idaho 211 (2016)), Fuhriman v. State, Dep’t of Transp. (143 Idaho 800 (2007)), and Ewing v. State, Dep’t of Transp. (147 Idaho 305 (2009)): Reinforced the exclusive‐remedy rule’s general bar on tort claims in the workers’ compensation context.
Hickman v. Boomers, LLC (554 P.3d 99 (2024)): Clarified that statutory amendments took precedence over judicially fashioned standards from Gomez.

2. Legal Reasoning

Idaho’s workers’ compensation scheme (I.C. § 72-209(1)) provides an exclusive remedy to employers and their agents, limiting injured workers to statutory benefits. A narrow exception (§ 72-209(3)) permits tort suits only when “unprovoked physical aggression” is proven by clear and convincing evidence—either an intent to harm or conduct knowing injury or death was substantially likely. At summary judgment, the plaintiff must show a genuine fact issue on both elements.

In Arellano’s case:

Knowledge Element: Arellano relied on OSHA standards and employer testimony that “common sense” suggests a fall can kill—but did not show Sunrise Homes actually knew of the specific risk or that injury was substantially likely when no fall protection was provided.
Conduct Element: While failure to provide fall protection may be negligent, the Court did not need to decide whether that omission alone qualifies as “physical aggression,” because the knowledge requirement was unmet.

Regarding summary judgment procedure, the Court reaffirmed that even claims requiring clear and convincing proof at trial are governed by conventional summary judgment standards—no weighing of evidence, no imposing trial‐level burdens.

3. Impact

Arellano v. Sunrise Homes, Inc. has several important consequences:

It reaffirms the high threshold for tort claims under the unprovoked aggression exception, discouraging broad use of OSHA noncompliance alone to breach the exclusive remedy.
It clarifies that the 2020 legislative amendments neither lowered the plaintiff’s burden nor adopted judicial expansions from Gomez.
It underscores that summary judgment analysis remains unchanged by the clear and convincing proof requirement at trial.
Future claimants must produce concrete evidence of an employer’s actual knowledge of imminent serious harm—not just awareness of general workplace hazards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exclusive Remedy Rule: Injured workers must pursue only workers’ compensation benefits and cannot sue their employer in tort—unless a statutory exception applies.
Unprovoked Physical Aggression Exception: A narrow carve‐out allowing a tort suit if the employer knowingly created a situation where serious injury or death was substantially likely, or specifically intended to harm.
Summary Judgment Standard: A motion to end litigation before trial when no key facts are in dispute. Even if the plaintiff needs “clear and convincing evidence” at trial, the summary judgment inquiry asks only whether a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff based on the evidence presented.

Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in Arellano v. Sunrise Homes, Inc. solidifies the narrow scope of the “unprovoked physical aggression” exception to the exclusive compensation remedy. It makes clear that general knowledge of workplace hazards, or mere noncompliance with OSHA rules, will not suffice to allow an injured worker to bypass the compensation system. Claimants must adduce clear evidence that an employer knew serious harm was substantially likely and proceeded regardless. This ruling reinforces the predictability of Idaho’s workers’ compensation regime and limits the expansion of tort liability against employers.