Workers Comp and Wrongful Death Claim
The legal representative of a subcontractor's employee, who had been killed in an explosion at the general contractor's worksite, brought a wrongful death action against the general contractor. The contractor claimed that the payment of workers compensation released it from that claim. This dispute is Wentworth v. Becker Custom Building, Ltd., 2011 WL 1902212 (Mass.).
The general contractor hired a subcontractor to perform waterproofing work on a residence. An explosion at the worksite resulted in the death of Wentworth and serious injuries to his son; both worked for the subcontractor. The subcontractor did not carry workers compensation insurance so the general contractor's workers comp insurer paid a lump-sum settlement to the claimants. Afterward, the legal representative of Wentworth filed a complaint alleging that Becker's negligence, gross negligence, and/or willful, wanton, or reckless conduct resulted in Wentworth's death and the son's injuries.
Becker, in a motion for summary judgment, argued that under the state workers compensation statute, by the acceptance of the lump-sum settlement, the representative was barred from filing a lawsuit for common law claims. The trial court agreed and granted Becker's motion. This appeal followed.
The representative argued that under the plain language of the statute, Becker is not an insured; Wentworth and his son are not Becker's employees, and thus, Becker is not entitled to immunity from common law claims. The appeals court agreed. The court said that immunity under the act applies to the insured, that is, an employer who provides workers compensation insurance to his employees. In this case, it was undisputed that Wentworth and his son were not employees of Becker. Therefore, the court said, the plain language of the statute does not release a general contractor that pays workers comp benefits to its uninsured subcontractor's employee.
The court went on to declare that the objectives of the relevant statutes are to prevent a general contractor from escaping its obligations under the workers comp act by hiring uninsured subcontractors. Under Becker's interpretation, the court said, although the insurer of a general contractor that willfully or negligently hires an uninsured subcontractor is required to pay the subcontractor's compensation obligation, the contractor would obtain the benefit of being released from the significantly greater damages that it would likely face in a common law action. The court would not accept this reasoning.
The court stated that its interpretation gives a general contractor strong incentive to retain subcontractors that have workers compensation insurance because it otherwise has to pay the workers comp benefits and is liable for any common law damages. This would implement the state legislature's intention to fully protect workers by allowing recovery from third parties.
The entry of summary judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Editor's Note: This opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts did not really center on an insured-insurer coverage dispute, but it points out the importance for general contractors to hire subcontractors that have workers compensation insurance. Most, if not all, states would require a general contractor to pay workers compensation benefits if the subcontractor did not have workers comp insurance and an employee of the subcontractor was injured on the job.