Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 44-503 (2026)

Subcontracting

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

44-503. Subcontracting. (a) Where any person (in this section referred to as principal) undertakes to execute any work which is a part of the principal's trade or business or which the principal has contracted to perform and contracts with any other person (in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any worker employed in the execution of the work any compensation under the workers compensation act which the principal would have been liable to pay if that worker had been immediately employed by the principal; and where compensation is claimed from or proceedings are taken against the principal, then in the application of the workers compensation act, references to the principal shall be substituted for references to the employer, except that the amount of compensation shall be calculated with reference to the earnings of the worker under the employer by whom the worker is immediately employed. For the purposes of this subsection, a worker shall not include an individual who is a self-employed subcontractor.

(b) Where the principal is liable to pay compensation under this section, the principal shall be entitled to indemnity from any person who would have been liable to pay compensation to the worker independently of this section, and shall have a cause of action under the workers compensation act for indemnification.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing a worker from recovering compensation under the workers compensation act from the contractor instead of the principal.

(d) This section shall not apply to any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on, in or about the premises on which the principal has undertaken to execute work or which are otherwise under the principal's control or management, or on, in or about the execution of such work under the principal's control or management.

(e) A principal contractor, when sued by a worker of a subcontractor, shall have the right to implead the subcontractor.

(f) The principal contractor who pays compensation to a worker of a subcontractor shall have the right to recover over against the subcontractor in the action under the workers compensation act if the subcontractor has been impleaded.

(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, in any case where the contractor (1) is an employer who employs employees in an employment to which the act is applicable, or has filed a written statement of election with the director to accept the provisions of the workers compensation act pursuant to subsection (b) of K.S.A. 44-505, and amendments thereto, to the extent of such election, and (2) has secured the payment of compensation as required by K.S.A. 44-532, and amendments thereto, for all persons for whom the contractor is required to or elects to secure such compensation, as evidenced by a current certificate of workers compensation insurance, by a certification from the director that the contractor is currently qualified as a self-insurer under that statute, or by a certification from the commissioner of insurance that the contractor is maintaining a membership in a qualified group-funded workers compensation pool, then, the principal shall not be liable for any compensation under this or any other section of the workers compensation act for any person for which the contractor has secured the payment of compensation which the principal would otherwise be liable for under this section and such person shall have no right to file a claim against or otherwise proceed against the principal for compensation under this or any other section of the workers compensation act. In the event that the payment of compensation is not secured or is otherwise unavailable or in effect, then the principal shall be liable for the payment of compensation. No insurance company shall charge a principal a premium for workers compensation insurance for any liability for which the contractor has secured the payment of compensation.

History: L. 1927, ch. 232, § 3; L. 1974, ch. 203, § 2; L. 1993, ch. 286, § 25; L. 1994, ch. 288, § 1; L. 1996, ch. 1, § 1; L. 1998, ch. 75, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 149, § 4; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 85 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Robinett v. the Haskell Co., 12 P.3d 411 (Kan. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robinett v. the Haskell Co., 12 P.3d 411 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 34× “Subcontracting under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act is addressed by the provisions of K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-503. K.S.A. 1999 Supp.”

Schmidt v. Trademark, Inc., 506 P.3d 267 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 16× “2d at 218. The panel also rejected the Fund's argument that it could recover attorney fees from Trademark, concluding instead that there was no statutory authorization for such recovery.”

Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 837 P.2d 348 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 15× “Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A. 20-3018(c) by transfer from the Court of Appeals to this court.”

Schmidt v. Trademark, Inc., 493 P.3d 958 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 25× “" K.S.A. 44-503. The Act makes it clear that when you construe its provisions, references to "employer" may refer to a principal contractor rather than the employee's direct employer (the subcontractor): "[A]nd where compensation is claimed from or proceedings are taken against…”

Lessley v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 231 P.2d 239 (Kan. 1951). · cites it 20× “) A careful examination of the foregoing decisions makes it crystal clear that under the facts of the instant case in determining the rights of the parties under the provisions of section 44-503 at the time appellant sustained his injuries questions relating to whether (1) the…”

Duarte v. DeBruce Grain, Inc., 78 P.3d 428 (Kan. 2003). · cites it 15× “First, Liberty contends that the designation “statutory *604 employer” is a judicially created concept signifying only that an entity is immune from civil liability.”

Wheeler v. Rolling Door Co., 109 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 16× “Determining that the State had failed to meet its burden of proof on this theory, the trial court stated: “The Court cannot find defendant undertook to execute specific work tasks which it had contracted to perform, and then ‘contracted with Smoky Hill for the performance of…”

Hoffman v. Cudahy Packing Co., 167 P.2d 613 (Kan. 1946). · cites it 12× “We would still have to determine whether there was liability under the provisions of section 44-503 of the act, presently to be considered.”

Bailey v. Mosby Hotel Co., 160 P.2d 701 (Kan. 1945). · cites it 12× “” *261 First, as to the first contention: Section 44-503 of the act provides, in substance that where any person contracts with any other person to do work which is part of the principal’s trade or business he shall be liable to pay compensation to any injured workman employed…”

Allen v. Mills, 724 P.2d 143 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 16× “The issue that we will resolve here is whether under the uncontroverted facts a self-employed person can be brought within the Workmen's Compensation Act as a "statutory" worker pursuant to K.S.A. 44-503. The facts presented to the trial court by defendant in support of his…”

Bright v. LSI CORP., 869 P.2d 686 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 8× “Cargill and Bright stipulated in their settlement that Cargill was Bright's K.S.A. 44-503 statutory employer. Cargill paid Bright $2,500,000, Bright released Cargill, and Cargill was dismissed from the case.”

Workers Comp. Fund v. Silicone Distrib., Inc., 809 P.2d 1199 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 17× “44-532a and K.S.A. 44-503. The examination requires discussion and resolution of questions relating to the liability of the Workers Compensation Fund (the Fund).”

Show all 85 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 44-503(a) — 49 cases

Schmidt v. Trademark, Inc., 506 P.3d 267 (Kan. 2022). “2d at 218. The panel also rejected the Fund's argument that it could recover attorney fees from Trademark, concluding instead that there was no statutory authorization for such recovery.”

Bright v. Cargill, Inc., 837 P.2d 348 (Kan. 1992). “Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A. 20-3018(c) by transfer from the Court of Appeals to this court.”

Robinett v. the Haskell Co., 12 P.3d 411 (Kan. 2000). “Subcontracting under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act is addressed by the provisions of K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-503. K.S.A. 1999 Supp.”

Wheeler v. Rolling Door Co., 109 P.3d 1255 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005). “Determining that the State had failed to meet its burden of proof on this theory, the trial court stated: “The Court cannot find defendant undertook to execute specific work tasks which it had contracted to perform, and then ‘contracted with Smoky Hill for the performance of…”

Duarte v. DeBruce Grain, Inc., 78 P.3d 428 (Kan. 2003). “First, Liberty contends that the designation “statutory *604 employer” is a judicially created concept signifying only that an entity is immune from civil liability.”

— K.S.A. § 44-503(c) — 2 cases

Mays v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 661 P.2d 348 (Kan. 1983).

Zehring v. Wickham, 658 P.2d 1004 (Kan. 1983).

— K.S.A. § 44-503(d) — 1 case

Est. of Stein v. Scott's Welding Svc., Inc. (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

— K.S.A. § 44-503(e) — 1 case

Schmidt v. Trademark, Inc., 493 P.3d 958 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “" K.S.A. 44-503. The Act makes it clear that when you construe its provisions, references to "employer" may refer to a principal contractor rather than the employee's direct employer (the subcontractor): "[A]nd where compensation is claimed from or proceedings are taken against…”

— K.S.A. § 44-503(f) — 2 cases

Trevizo v. El Gaucho Steakhouse, 253 P.3d 786 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).

— K.S.A. § 44-503(g) — 6 cases

Robinett v. the Haskell Co., 12 P.3d 411 (Kan. 2000). “Subcontracting under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act is addressed by the provisions of K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 44-503. K.S.A. 1999 Supp.”

Butera v. Fluor Daniel Constr. Corp., 61 P.3d 95 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).

LM Ins. Corp. v. Smart Framing Constr. LLC, Angel Gutierrez Castillo (D. Kan. 2026).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.