express or implied, with the second employer; (b) the work being done is essentially that of the second employer; and (c) the second employer has the right to control the details of the work. When all three of the above conditions are satisfied in relation to both employers, both employers will be liable for workers’ compensation and both will have the benefit of the exclusivity defense of tort claims. 5 . See, e.g., Ex parte Salvation Army, 72 So.3d 1224 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) (recognizing special employer immunity under workers’ compensation statute); Anderson v. Tuboscope Vetco., Inc., 9 P.3d 1013 (Alaska 2000) (same); Araiza v. U.S. West Business Resources, Inc., 183 Ariz. 448, 904 P.2d 1272 (App.1995) (same); Lopez v. Hydratech, Inc., 20 553, 578 N.Y.S.2d 106, 585 N.E.2d 355 (1991)
holding that a lent employees acceptance of his special employment status could be implied from his acquiescence to the control and direction of the special employer holding that defendant did not waive his special appearance by filing a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation holding that smiejas consent to a contract of hire could be implied from his acceptance of the districts control and direction of his work holding that plaintiffs decedent became special employee of separately incorporated subsidiary after general employer parent corporation lent his services to subsidiary under circumstances that satisfied special employment factors