Court Finds Control, Not Paperwork, Determines Worker’s Employee Status
- The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed on Aug. 4 that a satellite dish installer injured in an October 2019 ladder fall was an employee of J&S Technology Solutions at the time of his injury, despite an independent contractor agreement, 1099 tax forms, and the fact that he supplied his own van, hand tools and liability insurance.
- The court emphasized that J&S’s right to control the work was the decisive factor. The installer couldn’t work for competing companies, couldn’t decline jobs and couldn’t bring a helper without approval. J&S also ran his background check, trained him, supplied major equipment, and tracked him via app during his shifts.
- The court noted J&S used both employees and contractors for the identical installation work, calling this pattern one that “raises questions about the misclassification of independent contractors.”
- In a related twist, the court found that J&S had let its own workers’ comp coverage lapse after missing a premium payment, but that the insurer’s agent had misrepresented ongoing coverage, barring the insurer from denying coverage The case now returns to the workers’ compensation judge for further proceedings.
Overlapping Policy Exclusions Leave Employer Without Coverage For Workplace Death
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on Aug. 4 that Insurance Company of the West has no duty to defend or provide coverage to High Performance Alloys, Inc. in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the estate of a worker killed at the company’s Indiana facility.
- ICW had issued a worker’s compensation and employers’ liability insurance policy to HPA with an effective period of Oct. 1, 2021 to Oct. 1, 2022.
- The court found that two policy exclusions worked together to bar coverage: one excluding obligations imposed under workers’ compensation law, and another excluding bodily injury intentionally caused by the policyholder, leaving no scenario in which HPA’s conduct could fall within covered “bodily injury by accident.”
- The estate’s lawsuit alleged HPA knew its equipment was dangerous, ignored prior warnings, and left known hazards unaddressed — citing a “serious violation” from Indiana’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration over “ineffectively guarded equipment” — and claimed HPA “acted with actual intent to cause injury,” which the court said meant either the intentional-acts exclusion or the workers’ comp exclusion would apply.
- The court declined HPA’s request to certify the question to the Indiana Supreme Court, finding existing state precedent already resolved the issue, and noted that under Indiana law, allegations of known dangers and past violations point to negligence or recklessness.