Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Worker strikes out twice pursuing contractor for unpaid benefits

In Delaware, a subcontractor's employee cannot pursue an action as a third-party beneficiary against the general contractor where the subcontractor promised but failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Pettit v. Country Life Homes, Inc., No. 219, 2009 (Del. 10/30/09).

Ruling: The Delaware Supreme Court held that an injured worker was not a third-party beneficiary of a contract between a subcontractor and general contractor. It also held that the worker was not entitled to benefits from the general contractor for unpaid wages under the Wage Payment and Collection Act.

What it means: In Delaware, a subcontractor's employee cannot pursue an action as a third-party beneficiary against the general contractor where the subcontractor promised but failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance.

Summary: A worker was injured working for a subcontractor on a construction site. The worker was awarded benefits, but the subcontractor declared bankruptcy. The subcontractor's contract with the general contractor required it to obtain liability and workers' compensation insurance. It failed to obtain the required insurance. The worker argued he was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract. He also argued he was entitled to pursue the general contractor for unpaid benefits under the Wage Payment and Collection Act, which makes a general contractor liable for unpaid wages owed to a subcontractor's employees.

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments. It determined that the worker ignored the fact that the subcontractor promised to purchase the insurance, not the general contractor. It reasoned the contractual promise created a duty in the subcontractor to the intended beneficiary to obtain insurance, and the worker's only recourse was against the subcontractor that had promised but failed to perform.

The court determined the worker misinterpreted the language of the Workers' Compensation Act in conjunction with the WPCA. Even though the Workers' Compensation Act authorizes an employee to recover unpaid workers' compensation benefits from his employer in the same manner as a claim for wages, it only authorizes recovery from the worker's employer, which was the subcontractor. The court also determined the WPCA does not convert workers' compensation benefits into wages or automatically entitle the worker to pursue the general contractor. It only provides a mechanism for collection of those benefits under the WPCA.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.

December 21, 2009

Copyright 2009© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.