Was Robert Callan Pimbers Co-employee?
P32 We next address whether the superior court has jurisdiction over Pimber’s action against Robert Callan individually. That determination hinges on whether Pimber and Callan were co-employees at the time Pimber was injured. The respondent [*24] judge concluded they were not after examining “the totality of the circumstances,” including the undisputed facts that UAPD was Pimber’s primary employer and that Pimber had “had no contract with” and owed “no legal duty to TPD.” She conducted that analysis pursuant to Santiago v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 164 Ariz. 505, 794 P.2d 138 (1990). But our supreme court applied that analysis in determining whether the driver of a car who had collided with the plaintiff’s motorcycle was an employee of the newspaper, making the newspaper vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, or an independent contractor, relieving the newspaper of liability. That analysis is not applicable to this case in light of the language of ยง 23-1022(D) and the IGA. P3
