Can workers pursue both compensation benefits and tort claims against employers? Helf v. Chevron Explained

In Helf v. Chevron, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether the election of remedies doctrine bars workers from pursuing intentional tort claims after receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

Background and Facts

Jenna Helf worked at a Chevron oil refinery where she was instructed to add sulfuric acid to a waste pit containing caustic sludge. Earlier that day, the same process had produced hydrogen sulfide gas, triggering emergency alarms and making workers throughout the facility sick. Despite this knowledge, her night-shift supervisor ordered her to repeat the process. Helf, an inexperienced three-month trainee, was seriously injured by the toxic gas cloud and suffered permanent injuries including seizures and memory problems. She received workers’ compensation benefits, then sued Chevron for intentional tort.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two critical issues: (1) whether sufficient evidence existed to survive summary judgment on the intentional tort claim, and (2) whether the election of remedies doctrine barred the tort suit after accepting workers’ compensation benefits.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court reversed summary judgment, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude supervisors knew injury was virtually certain when they ordered the dangerous process repeated. More significantly, the court rejected the strict application of election of remedies doctrine to workplace injury cases. The court reasoned that forcing workers to choose between immediate compensation benefits and potential tort recovery creates a “cruel dilemma” and transforms workers’ compensation into a “grandiose sort of double-or-nothing gamble.”

Practice Implications

This decision allows Utah workers to pursue both remedies without making an irrevocable early election. However, successful tort claimants cannot retain both recoveries—they must reimburse workers’ compensation carriers for benefits paid. The ruling also clarifies that at least one individual with authority to direct the worker’s actions must have the requisite knowledge for intentional tort liability, rejecting collective knowledge theories.