Workers’ Compensation Immunity

Date Posted

Thursday, September 19, 2024
Download PDF

A fundamental principle of workers’ compensation laws is that an employer who provides compensation to an injured employee (pursuant to the applicable state statute) is entitled to immunity from civil actions by that employee or his/her representatives (i.e., an employee’s exclusive remedy is workers’ compensation benefits). In some states, this immunity is extended to upstream parties, such as a project owner or general contractor under certain circumstances. This survey is intended to examine several key issues with respect to the scope and extent of workers’ compensation requirements and immunity across the 50 states. Below is an explanation of each column in the survey:

Type of Workers’ Compensation Insurance

This column addresses whether workers’ compensation insurance is provided through: (1) private insurers, (2) a monopolistic state fund (i.e., only the state provides workers’ compensation benefits), or (3) competitive state funds (where state owned and operated entities compete with private commercial insurers to write workers’ compensation insurance).

Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy Statute

This column references the state statutes which address the extent to which workers’ compensation benefits constitute an injured employee’s exclusive legal remedy against its direct employer.

Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine

This column identifies the state statute or common law obligation that requires certain employers, predominantly contractors, to provide or secure workers’ compensation benefits if an entity with which they subcontracted fails to provide benefits to its injured employees. Each state’s statute has specific nuances and qualifications and the relevant statute should be consulted to determine whether an employer is potentially affected.

Illustrative Example: ABC General Contractor hires XYZ Subcontractor to perform plumbing services for a project.XYZ Subcontractor’s employee is injured while lifting materials and the employee learns that its direct employer, XYZ Subcontractor, failed to procure workers’ compensation insurance and cannot compensate him for his injuries. The principal/statutory employer doctrine requires ABC General Contractor to provide workers’ compensation benefits to XYZ Subcontractor’s employee because ABC General Contractor is considered the employee’s “statutory employer.”

Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers

This column identifies case law applying the exclusive remedy statute to principal/statutory employers and analyzes whether a principal/statutory employer is entitled to the same immunity from civil actions as a direct
employer. States typically adopt one of four approaches:

  • 1. Principal/Statutory Employer not entitled to immunity regardless of whether the principal/statutory employer pays for injured employee’s workers’
    compensation benefits.
  • 2. Principal/Statutory Employer entitled to immunity only if the principal/statutory employer pays for injured employee’s workers’ compensation benefits.
  • 3. Principal/Statutory Employer entitled to immunity regardless of whether the principal/statutory employer pays for injured employee’s workers’ compensation benefits.
  • 4. The law is unclear/there is no applicable precedent

Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Wrap-Ups

This column identifies available case law applying the exclusive remedy statute to wrap-up insurance schemes (i.e., owner-controlled insurance programs, “OCIPs”, or contractor-controlled insurance programs, “CCIPs”) and analyzes whether an owner (who provides an OCIP) or a contractor (who provides a CCIP) is entitled to the same immunity from civil actions as a direct employer.

Subrogation Waiver Prohibited by Statute

This column identifies states that have expressly prohibited waivers of subrogation in workers’ compensation insurance policies.

Type of Workers' Compensation Insurance

Private
Competitive State Fund
Monopolistic State Fund

STATE Type of WC Insurance WC Exclusive Remedy Statute Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Wrap-Ups Subrogation Waiver Prohibited by Statute

Alabama

 Private Ala. Code
§ 25-5-53 		No statute Not applicable No precedent No

Alaska

 Private Alaska Stat.
§ 23.30.055 		Alaska Stat.
§ 23.30.045 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits See Anderson v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 234 P.3d 1282 (Alaska 2010). No precedent No

Arizona

 Competitive State Fund Ariz. Rev. Stat.
§ 23-1022 		Ariz. Rev. Stat.
§ 23-902 		Statutory employers are entitled to immunity Actual Payment of benefits is not required. See Wagner v. State, 393 P.3d 156 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). No precedent No

Arkansas

 Private Ark. Code
§ 11-9-105 		Ark. Code
§ 11-9-402 		Statutory employers likely entitled to immunity only if employee’s employer fails to provide benefits and stat- utory employer subsequently provides benefits. See Stapleton v. M.D. Limbaugh Constr. Co., 333 Ark. 381 (Ark. 1998). No precedent No, but see General Accident Insurance Company v. Jaynes, 33 S.W.3d 161 (Ark. 2000) (Insured's settlement with a third-party defendant is not necessarily absolute; rather, the settlement is subject to a court's approv- al).

California

 Competitive State Fund Cal. Lab. Code
§§ 3601 and 3602 		No Statute, but see Moehring v. Thomas, 126 Cal. App. 4th 1515, 1519 (2005) Not applicable No precedent No

Colorado

 Competitive State Fund Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 8-41-102 		Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 8-41-401 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Buzard v. Super Walls, Inc., 681 P.2d 520 (Colo. 1984) No precedent No

Connecticut

 Private Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 31-284 		Conn. Gen. Stat.
§ 31-291 		Statute requires principal employer to pay benefits in order to obtain immunity.

Exclusivity applicable to OCIP and CCIP.

However, the statutory employer must actually pay the premiums and cannot simply pass these costs off to subcontractor. See Gonzalez v. O & G Indus., Inc. 140 A.3d 950 ( Conn. 2016 ) 		No

Delaware

 Private Del. Code tit. 19,
§ 2304 		19 Del. Code
§ 2311 		No immunity for upstream parties. See Dickinson v. Eastern Railroad Builders, Inc., 403 A.2d 717 (Del. 1979). No precedent No
STATE Type of WC Insurance WC Exclusive Remedy Statute Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Wrap-Ups Subrogation Waiver Prohibited by Statute

District of Columbia

 Private D.C. Code
§ 32-1504 		D.C. Code
§ 32-1503 		General contractor is not immune from suit by an in- jured employee of its subcontractor unless the general contractor secures the payment of statutory compensa- tion to the injured employee after the subcontractor fails to secure such compensation. See Meiggs v. Associat- ed Builders, Inc., 545 A.2d 631 (D.C. 1988). Exclusivity not applicable to OCIP: Black v. Kiewit Constr. Co., No. 89-1834, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3951 (D.D.C. Apr. 9, 1990). No

Florida

Private Fla. Stat.
§ 440.11 		Fla. Stat.
§ 440.10 		Statutory employers are entitled to immunity if liable for securing workers' compensation benefits. See Ramos by v. Univision Holdings, 655 So. 2d 89 ( FLA. 1995). Exclusivity may not be applicable to an owner providing an OCIP, because an owner is not statutorily required to purchase insurance for its contractors’ employees: Wenzel v. Boyles Galvanizing Co., 920 F.2d 778 (11th Cir. 1991) (apply- ing Florida law). No

Georgia

 Private Ga. Code
§ 34-9-11 		Ga. Code
§ 34-9-8 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Eng. v. Beers Constr. Co., 224 Ga. App. 44 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). Exclusivity not applicable to OCIP: See Pogue v. Oglethorpe Power Corp., 477 S.E.2d 107 (Ga. 1996). No

Hawaii

 Competitive State Fund Haw. Rev. Stat.
§ 386-5 		Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 386- 1 (see “employee”) and 386-4 (voluntary coverage) Immunity for upstream party if subcontractor fails to pay benefits and upstream party becomes liable and pays. See Jordan v. Rita, 66 Haw. 568 (Haw. 1983). No precedent No

Idaho

 Competitive State Fund Idaho Code
§ 72-209 		Idaho Code
§ 72-216 		Statutory employers entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. Fuhriman v. State, 153 P.3d 480 (Idaho 2007). No precedent No

Illinois

 Private 820 Ill. Comp. Stat.
§ 305/11 		820 Ill. Comp. Stat.
305/1 		No immunity for statutory employers. See Statewide Ins. Co. v. Brendan Constr. Co., 578 N.E.2d 1264 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991). No precedent No

Indiana

 Private Ind. Code
§ 22-3-2-6 		Ind. Code
§ 22-3-2-14 		No immunity for statutory employers. Wolf v. Kajima Int’l Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) opinion adopted, 629 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. 1994). Exclusivity not applicable to OCIP: See Wolf v. Kajima Int’l Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) opinion adopted, 629 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. 1994). No

Iowa

 Private Iowa Code
§ 85.20 		No statute Not applicable No precedent No
STATE Type of WC Insurance WC Exclusive Remedy Statute Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute toWrap-Ups Subrogation WaiverProhibited byStatute

Kansas

 Private Kan. Stat.
§ 44-501b 		Kan. Stat.
§ 44-503 		Statutory employers entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Robinett v. Haskell Co., 12 P.3d 411 (Kan. 2000). No precedent Yes, but see Kan. Stat. § 16-1803 for exceptions.

Kentucky

 Competitive State Fund Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 342.690 		Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 342.610 		Statutory employers entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Pennington v. Jenkins-Essex Constr., Inc., 238 S.W.3d 660 (Ky. Ct. App. 2006). Exclusivity applicable to OCIP. See Casey v. Vanderlande Indus., No. CIV.A. 301CV413S, 2002 WL 1496815 (W.D. Ky. June 28, 2002) (direct employer entitled to immunity, where workers’ compensation insurance was purchased under an OCIP). Yes, but see Ky. Rev. Stat Ann. § 342.700 for applicability

Louisiana

 Competitive State Fund La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 23:1032 		La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 23:1061 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Sibert v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 136 So. 3d 283 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2014); see also La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1061(a). Exclusivity likely applicable to OCIP. See Paxton v. Kirk Key Interlock Co., LLC, No. CIV.A. 08-583- D-M2, 2008 WL 4977299 (M.D. La. Oct. 21, 2008), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, No. CIV.A. 08-583-JJB, 2008 WL 5043428 (M.D. La. Nov. 21, 2008) No

Maine

 Competitive State Fund Me. Rev. Stat. tit.
39-A § 104 		Me. Stat. tit. 39-A
§ 102(11)(A)(8) 		Not applicable No precedent No, but see Me. Stat. tit. 39-A, § 107 and Fowler v. Boise Cascade Corp., 948 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1991) (applying Maine Law).

Maryland

 Competitive State Fund Md. Code, Lab. &
Empl. § 9-509 		Md. Code, Lab. &
Empl. § 9-508 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Para v. Richards Group of Wash. Ltd. Partnership, 661 A.2d 737 (Md. 1995). Exclusivity applicable to OCIP: See Rodrigues-Novo v. Recchi Am., Inc., 846 A.2d 1048 (Md. 2004). No

Massachusetts

 Private Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 24 Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152, § 18 No immunity for statutory employers. See Wentworth v. Henry C. Becker Custom Bldg. LTD , 459 Mass. 768 (Mass. 2011). No precedent No
STATE Type of WC Insurance WC Exclusive Remedy Statute Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute toWrap-Ups Subrogation WaiverProhibited byStatute

Michigan

 Private Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.131 Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.171 Immunity only if principal employer becomes liable for contractor’s failure to provide benefits. See Drewes v. Grand Valley State Colleges, 308 N.W.2d 642 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Exclusivity not applicable: See Burger v. Midland Cogeneration Venture, 507 N.W.2d 827 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993); but cf. Stevenson v. HH & N/Turner, No. 01-CV71705-DT, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26831 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2002);

Harmer v. R.E. Dailey & Co., No. 202137, 1998 WL 1988612 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 1998)

 No

Minnesota

 Competitive State Fund Minn. Stat.
§ 176.031 		Minn. Stat.
§§ 176.061, 176.215 		No immunity for statutory employers. See Klemetsen v. Stenberg Constr. Co., 424 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 1988); Hallas v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising, 541 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). No precedent No

Mississippi

 Private Miss. Code Ann.
§ 71-3-9 		Miss. Code Ann.
§ 71-3-7 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Salyer v. Mason Techs., 690 So. 2d 1183 (Miss. 1997). Exclusivity not applicable to OCIP. See Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 212 So. 3d 58, 59 (Miss. 2017). No

Missouri

 Competitive State Fund Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 287.120 		Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 287.040 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Shaw v. Mega Indus., Corp., 406 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). No precedent Yes, for construction group code classifications. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.150(6).

Montana

 Competitive State Fund Mont. Code Ann.
§ 39-71-411 		Mont. Code Ann.
§ 39-71-405 		No immunity for statutory employers. See Webb v. Montana Masonry Constr. Co., 761 P.2d 343 (Mont. 1988). No precedent No

Nebraska

 Private Neb. Rev. Stat.
§§ 48-109, 48-111 N 		Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 48-116 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Petznick v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 698 (D. Neb. 1983). But see limited scope of statutory employer statute. Exclusivity not applicable to OCIP. See Culp v. Archer-Daniels- Midlands Co., No. 4:08CV3197, 2009 WL 1035246 (D. Neb. Apr. 17, 2009). No

Nevada

 Private Nev. Rev. Stat.
§§ 616A.020, 616B.612 		Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 616A.020(3),
616A.210, 616B.603 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Oliver v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, 905 P.2d 168 (Nev. 1995); see also Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616A.020(3). Exclusivity applicable to OCIPs and CCIPs. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616A.020(4); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616B.612. No
STATE Type of WC Insurance WC Exclusive Remedy Statute Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute toWrap-Ups Subrogation WaiverProhibited byStatute

New Hampshire

 Private N.H. Rev Stat. Ann.
§ 281-A:8 		N.H. Rev Stat. Ann.
§ 281-A:18 		Statutory employer likely not entitled to immunity. See Elliott v. Pub. Serv. Co. of New Hampshire, 517 A.2d1185 (N.H. 1986). No precedent Yes, see N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 281-A:13(VI).

New Jersey

 Private N.J. Stat.
§ 34:15-8 		N.J. Stat.
§ 34:15-79(a) 		No immunity for statutory employers. Eger v. E.I. Du Pont DeNemours Co., 539 A.2d 1213 (N.J. 1988). No precedent Yes, see N.J. Rev. Stat. § 34:15-39.

New Mexico

 Competitive State Fund N.M. Stat.
§ 52-1-9 		N.M. Stat.
§§ 52-1-22, 52-1-23 		Immunity if direct employer fails to provide benefits and benefits are paid by statutory employer. See Harger v. Structural Servs., 916 P.2d 1324 (N.M. 1996). No precedent No

New York

 Competitive State Fund N.Y. Workers’
Comp. Law § 11 		N.Y. Workers’ Comp Law § 56 (for hazardous employment subcontractors) No immunity under § 56. See Cutillo v. Emory Housing Corp., 19 Misc. 2d 865 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1959). Exclusivity not applicable to OCIP. See Duchenne v. 774 Dev., LLC, 2013 WL 9639612 (N.Y.Sup.). No

North Carolina

 Competitive State Fund N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 97-10.1 		N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 97-19 		Immunity if benefits are paid by statutory employer. See Rich v. R.L. Casey, Inc., 454 S.E.2d 666 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995). No precedent Unclear, see N.C. Gen. Stat § 97-10.2 and Cook v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 704 S.E.2d 567 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) and Anglin v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., 742 S.E.2d 205 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).

North Dakota

 Monopolistic State Fund N.D. Cent. Code
§§ 65-01-01, 65-01-08 		N.D. Cent. Code
§ 65-04-26.2 		No immunity for statutory employers. See Boettner v. Twin City Const. Co., 214 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1974) (interpreting previous statute). No precedent No

Ohio

 Monopolistic State Fund Ohio Rev. Code
§ 4123.74 		Ohio Rev. Code
§ 4123.01 		Statutory employers are entitled to immunity if liable for securing workers’ compensation benefits. Trumbull Cliffs Furnace Co. v. Shachovsky, 146 N.E. 306 (Ohio 1924). Exclusivity applicable to general contractor providing CCIP, see Stolz v. J&B Steel Erectors, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 3d 696 (S.D. Ohio 2014), and to subcontractors enrolled in the CCIP, see Stolz v. J&B Steel Erectors, Inc., 55 N.E.3d 1082 (Ohio 2016). No

Oklahoma

 Competitive State Fund Okla. Stat. tit. 85A,
§ 5 		Okla. Stat. tit.
85A, § 36 		No immunity for statutory employers. Okla. Stat. tit. 85A, § 5 (e) No precedent No

Oregon

 Competitive State Fund Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 656.018. But see Bundy v. NuStar GP, LLC, 407 P.3d 801 (Or. 2017) 		Or. Rev. Stat.
§§ 656.029, 656.556 		Unclear if actual payment would entitle statutory employer to immunity. See Martelli v. R.A. Chambers & Assoc., 800 P.2d 766 (Or. 1990). Exclusivity not applicable to OCIP: See Schmidt v. Intel Corp., 112 P.3d 428 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). No
STATE Type of WC Insurance WC Exclusive Remedy Statute Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute toWrap-Ups Subrogation WaiverProhibited byStatute

Pennsylvania

 Competitive State Fund 77 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 481 77 Pa. Cons. Stat.
§§ 461, 462 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Peck v. Del. County Bd. of Prison Inspectors, 814 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2002). No precedent No

Rhode Island

 Competitive State Fund 28 R.I. Gen. Laws
§ 28-29-20 		28 R.I. Gen. Laws
§ § 28-29-6.1, §28-29-2(6). 		Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Sorenson v. Colibri Corp., 650 A.2d 125 (R.I. 1994). No precedent No

South Carolina

 Private S.C. Code Ann.
§ 42-1-540 		S.C. Code Ann.
§ 42-1-400 (owners); S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-410 (contractors) S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-420 (sub-subcontractors) 		Immunity if statutory employer secures coverage. The actions of the direct employer are irrelevant. This can frequently lead to double protection. See Harrell v. Pineland Plantation, Ltd., 523 S.E.2d 766 (S.C. 1999). No precedent No

South Dakota

 Private S.D. Codified Laws
§ 62-3-2 		S.D. Codified Laws
§ 62-3-10 		Statutory employer is entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Metzger v. J. F. Brunken & Son, Inc., 169 N.W.2d 261 (S.D. 1969) subsequently referenced in Thompson v. Mehlhaff, 698 N.W.2d 512 (S.D. 2005). No precedent No

Tennessee

 Private Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 50-6-108 		Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 50-6-113 		Statutory employers are entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Troup v. Fischer Steel Corp., 236 S.W.3d 143 (Tenn. 2007); Bray v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 742 F. Supp. 2d 911 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). No precedent No
STATE Type of WC Insurance WC Exclusive Remedy Statute Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute toWrap-Ups Subrogation WaiverProhibited byStatute

Texas

 Competitive State Fund Tex. Lab. Code
§ 408.001 		Tex. Lab. Code
§ 406.123 		Statutory employer who provides compensation is entitled to immunity. See Halferty v. Flextronics Am., LLC, No. 13- 16-00379-CV, 2018 WL 897979 (Tex. App. Feb. 15, 2018).

Exclusivity applicable to OCIP. See HCBeck, Ltd. v. Rice, 284 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. 2009); Hunt Constr. Group, Inc. v. Konecny, 290 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App. 2008); Entergy Gulf States Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009).

All enrolled subcontractors and their employees in CCIP become statutory co-employees, therefore exclusivity applies to GC and all enrolled subs. See TIC Energy & Chem., Inc. v. Martin, 498 S.W.3d 68, 78 (Tex. 2016). See Becon Const. Co. v. Alonso,, 444 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App. 2014); Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., 135 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App. 2004).

 No

Utah

 Competitive State Fund Utah Code
§ 34A-2-105 		Utah Code § 34A-2-103, subd. (7)(a); subd. (7)(c); subd. (7)(e); Utah Code § 34A-2-106, subsection (4) Statutory employer who provides compensation, even indirectly, is entitled to immunity. See Ghersi v. Salazar, 883 P.2d 1352 (Utah 1994); Nichols v. Jacobsen Const. Co., 374 P.3d 3 (Utah 2000). Exclusivity applicable to CCIP. See Nichols v. Jacobsen Const. Co., 374 P.3d 3 (Utah 2000). No

Vermont

 Private Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21,
§ 622 		Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 21, § 601(3); In re ChathamWoods Holdings, LLC,955 A.2d 1183 (Vt. 2008)(applying § 601(3) toowner). relationship). Statutory employer entitled to immunity regardless of actual payment of benefits. See Edson v. State, 830 A.2d 671 (Vt.2003). No precedent No

Virginia

 Private Va. Code Ann.
§ 65.2-307 		Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302 Statutory employers are entitled to immunity regardless of payment. See Slusher v. Paramount Warrior, Inc., 336 F.Supp. 1381 (W.D. Va. 1971); Farish v. Courion Indus., Inc.,722 F.2d 74 (4th Cir. 1983). Exclusivity applicable to OCIP. 1999 Va. Op. Att'y Gen. 72 (1999) No

Washington

 Monopolistic State Fund Wash. Rev. Code
§ 51.32.010 		Wash. Rev. Code
§ 51.12.070 		No immunity for statutory employers. See Greenleaf v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co., 364 P.2d 796 (Wash.1961); Hildahl v. Bringolf, 5 P.3d 38 (Wash Ct. App. 2000). No precedent No
STATE Type of WC Insurance WC Exclusive Remedy Statute Principal/Statutory Employer Doctrine Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute to Principal/Statutory Employers Application of Exclusive Remedy Statute toWrap-Ups Subrogation WaiverProhibited byStatute

West Virginia

 Private W. Va. Code
§ 23-2-6 		W. Va. Code
§ 23-2-1d 		No precedent. But see W. Va. Code § 23-2-1d(a) (“Nothing contained in this section shall extend...to a primary contractor … the provisions of [W. Va. Code § 23-2-6]” and thus, statutory employer likely not entitled to immunity). No precedent No

Wisconsin

 Private Wis. Stat.
§ 102.03 		Wis. Stat.
§ 102.06 		No immunity for statutory employers. Kaltenbrun v. Gabe's Constr., 459 N.W.2d 259 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990). Exclusivity not applicable to OCIP: See Pride v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 04-C-703, 2007 WL 1655111 (E.D. Wis. June 5, 2007). No, but see Wis. Stat. § 102.29(1) and Campion v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 493 N.W.2d 244 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).

Wyoming

 Monopolistic State Fund Wyo. Stat. Ann.
§ 27-14-104 		Wyo. Stat. Ann.
§ 27-14-102, subd. (a)(viii) (G), § 27- 14-206(e). 		No precedent. But see Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-14-206(e) (“If a general contractor pays premiums on behalf of employees of a subcontractor, the contractor shall be afforded all privileges and immunities under this act as if he were the employer of the subcontractor's employees.” Thus, statutory employer may be entitled to immunity if it provides compensation to the employee). No precedent Yes, state fund shall be entitled to reimbursement. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27- 14-105.

Disclaimer: This survey is current as of 5/2018. This material is made available for general informational purposes only. The field of insurance law is ever-evolving, and courts may change their views at any time. Readers are advised to independently verify the information contained herein. This material is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice, nor is it intended to constitute a solicitation for the formation of an attorney-client relationship.

For more information or questions on workers’ compensation immunity strategies, please contact us at coverage@sdvlaw.com.

Contact Us

Our clients span a broad range and include individuals, non-profit institutions, universities, hospitals, municipalities, utilities, and corporations. No matter who you are or where you’re located, SDV is the right choice for policyholders.

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.