Upheld: Injured Subcontractor’s Lent Employee Has No Claim Against Landowner or General Contractor After Choosing Workers’ Compensation and Failing to Prove Landowner Controlled the Work

by Snell & Wilmer
Contact

On this Memorial Day 2015, I write in honor of my U.S. Marine Corps colleague, Megan McClung, who was killed in Iraq nine years ago this December.  Major McClung and I served together in Anbar Province in 2006.  She was the first female Marine Corps officer to be killed in Iraq and the first female graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy to be killed in action.  She is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

In Lee v. M and H Enterprises, Inc., — P.3d —- (decided Apr. 21, 2015), the Arizona Court of Appeals recently clarified why, in most cases, landowners and general contractors are not liable when subcontractor employees are injured or killed on construction projects.

First, landowners are generally not responsible for injuries to contractors’ employees who are covered by their employer’s workers’ compensation insurance.  Neither are landowners liable for injuries sustained by contractor employees performing work that landowners do not control.  Second, contractors are immune from tort liability when other contractors lend employees who elect coverage under their own workers’ compensation insurance.  These general legal principles have a few exceptions, but none of these exceptions applied in the Lee case.

Lee was a general laborer from a sourcing company called Able Body Labor.  M&H was the general contractor that directed Lee’s work once Able Body dispatched Lee to the project.  Lee fell and was seriously injured at one of Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club stores in Arizona.

After Lee claimed and received workers’ compensation benefits from Able Body, Lee also sued M&H and Wal-Mart for negligence and premises liability.  Lee alleged Wal-Mart and M&H negligently caused an unsafe worksite.  Lee further claimed M&H and Wal-Mart could not pass off or delegate safety obligations to others because Wal-Mart and M&H controlled Lee’s work.

As a temporary employee sourced by Able Body and assigned to M&H, however, Lee could not choose workers’ compensation from Able Body and also pursue tort recovery from M&H.  The “lent employee doctrine” immunized M&H from liability in the same way Able Body was immune from liability once Lee elected workers’ compensation as his remedy.

The “independent contractor rule” equally shielded Wal-Mart, as the landowner, from being liable for the contractors’ negligence.  An exception to this rule was if Wal-Mart was vicariously or independently liable for exercising actual control over Lee or his work.

Lee, to the contrary, was assigned by Able Body and under actual direction and control of M&H when Lee fell.  That M&H controlled the worksite was, moreover, expressly provided in its contract with Wal-Mart.  The appellate court, therefore, enforced “the general rule that a landowner is not liable for injuries suffered by an employee of an independent contractor performing work on the property.”  Id., ¶ 20.

Like all subcontractor employees injured on the job, Lee had a choice of available remedies.  He decided upon the insurance his employer provided.  Only under limited circumstances could Lee choose workers’ compensation and tort remedies against the general contractor.

Furthermore, a subcontractor employee like Lee would rarely have additional remedies against the landowner merely on the basis of property ownership and premises liability.  Lee, in other words, did not fall at Wal-Mart as a customer in the store.  He was a lent employee working on construction of the store.  His injuries were suitably covered by his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance.

The Lee case is nonetheless a warning to landowners to pay attention on the issue of control.  Let contractors build the project and provide for worker safety and remedies.  If landowners intervene and actually control a subcontractor’s work, landowners may find themselves unprotected by the independent contractor rule—and liable for a worker’s injuries even after the worker receives workers’ compensation from another source.

- See more at: http://www.swlaw.com/blog/real-estate-litigation/2015/05/25/upheld-injured-subcontractors-lent-employee-has-no-claim-against-landowner-or-general-contractor-after-choosing-workers-compensation-and-failing-to-prove-landowner-controlled-the-wo/#sthash.DWoURvPp.dpuf

For this Memorial Day 2015, I write in honor of my U.S. Marine Corps colleague, Megan McClung, who was killed in Iraq nine years ago this December.  Major McClung and I served together in Anbar Province in 2006.  She was the first female Marine Corps officer to be killed in Iraq and the first female graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy to be killed in action.  She is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

In Lee v. M and H Enterprises, Inc., — P.3d —- (decided Apr. 21, 2015), the Arizona Court of Appeals recently clarified why, in most cases, landowners and general contractors are not liable when subcontractor employees are injured or killed on construction projects.

First, landowners are generally not responsible for injuries to contractors’ employees who are covered by their employer’s workers’ compensation insurance.  Neither are landowners liable for injuries sustained by contractor employees performing work that landowners do not control.  Second, contractors are immune from tort liability when other contractors lend employees who elect coverage under their own workers’ compensation insurance.  These general legal principles have a few exceptions, but none of these exceptions applied in the Lee case.

Lee was a general laborer from a sourcing company called Able Body Labor.  M&H was the general contractor that directed Lee’s work once Able Body dispatched Lee to the project.  Lee fell and was seriously injured at one of Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club stores in Arizona.

After Lee claimed and received workers’ compensation benefits from Able Body, Lee also sued M&H and Wal-Mart for negligence and premises liability.  Lee alleged Wal-Mart and M&H negligently caused an unsafe worksite.  Lee further claimed M&H and Wal-Mart could not pass off or delegate safety obligations to others because Wal-Mart and M&H controlled Lee’s work.

As a temporary employee sourced by Able Body and assigned to M&H, however, Lee could not choose workers’ compensation from Able Body and also pursue tort recovery from M&H.  The “lent employee doctrine” immunized M&H from liability in the same way Able Body was immune from liability once Lee elected workers’ compensation as his remedy.

The “independent contractor rule” equally shielded Wal-Mart, as the landowner, from being liable for the contractors’ negligence.  An exception to this rule was if Wal-Mart was vicariously or independently liable for exercising actual control over Lee or his work.

Lee, to the contrary, was assigned by Able Body and under actual direction and control of M&H when Lee fell.  That M&H controlled the worksite was, moreover, expressly provided in its contract with Wal-Mart.  The appellate court, therefore, enforced “the general rule that a landowner is not liable for injuries suffered by an employee of an independent contractor performing work on the property.”  Id., ¶ 20.

Like all subcontractor employees injured on the job, Lee had a choice of available remedies.  He decided upon the insurance his employer provided.  Only under limited circumstances could Lee choose workers’ compensation and tort remedies against the general contractor.

Furthermore, a subcontractor employee like Lee would rarely have additional remedies against the landowner merely on the basis of property ownership and premises liability.  Lee, in other words, did not fall at Wal-Mart as a customer in the store.  He was a lent employee working on construction of the store.  His injuries were suitably covered by his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance.

The Lee case is nonetheless a warning to landowners to pay attention on the issue of control.  Let contractors build the project and provide for worker safety and remedies.  If landowners intervene and actually control a subcontractor’s work, landowners may find themselves unprotected by the independent contractor rule—and liable for a worker’s injuries even after the worker receives workers’ compensation from another source.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Snell & Wilmer | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Snell & Wilmer
Contact
more
less

Snell & Wilmer on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.