Any principal contractor, intermediate contractor, or subcontractor who shall sublet any contract for the performance of any work without obtaining from such subcontractor or obtaining from the Industrial Commission a certificate, issued by a workers' compensation insurance carrier, or a certificate of compliance issued by the Department of Insurance to a self-insured subcontractor, stating that such subcontractor has complied with G.S. 97-93 for a specified term, shall be liable, irrespective of whether such subcontractor has regularly in service fewer than three employees in the same business within this State, to the same extent as such subcontractor would be if he were subject to the provisions of this Article for the payment of compensation and other benefits under this Article on account of the injury or death of any employee of such subcontractor due to an accident arising out of and in the course of the performance of the work covered by such subcontract. If the principal contractor, intermediate contractor or subcontractor shall obtain such certificate at any time before subletting such contract to the subcontractor, he shall not thereafter be held liable to any employee of such subcontractor for compensation or other benefits under this Article and within the term specified by the certificate.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, any principal contractor, intermediate contractor, or subcontractor who shall sublet any contract for the performance of work shall not be held liable to any employee of such subcontractor if either (i) the subcontractor has a workers' compensation insurance policy in compliance with G.S. 97-93 in effect on the date of injury regardless of whether the principal contractor, intermediate contractor, or subcontractor failed to timely obtain a certificate from the subcontractor; or (ii) the policy expired or was cancelled prior to the date of injury provided the principal contractor, intermediate contractor, or subcontractor obtained a certificate at any time before subletting such contract to the subcontractor and was unaware of the expiration or cancellation.
Any principal contractor, intermediate contractor, or subcontractor paying compensation or other benefits under this Article, under the foregoing provisions of this section, may recover the amount so paid from any person, persons, or corporation who independently of such provision, would have been liable for the payment thereof.
Every claim filed with the Industrial Commission under this section shall be instituted against all parties liable for payment, and said Commission, in its award, shall fix the order in which said parties shall be exhausted, beginning with the immediate employer.
The principal or owner may insure any or all of his contractors and their employees in a blanket policy, and when so insured such contractor's employees will be entitled to compensation benefits regardless of whether the relationship of employer and employee exists between the principal and the contractor. (1929, c. 120, s. 19; 1941, c. 358, s. 1; 1945, c. 766; 1973, c. 1291, s. 10; 1979, c. 247, s. 2; 1987, c. 729, s. 4; 1989, c. 637; 1991, c. 703, s. 7; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 679, s. 10.6; 1995, c. 517, s. 36; 1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 555, s. 1; 2013-413, s. 13(c).)
Notes of Decisions
Robertson v. Hagood Homes, Inc., 584 S.E.2d 871 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 128× “I agree with the majority's determination that N.C. Gen.Stat. § 97-19 provides liability to the general contractor when an employee of the subcontractor is injured under these facts.”
Putman v. Alexander, 670 S.E.2d 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 46× “If the principal contractor, intermediate contractor or subcontractor shall obtain such certificate at the time of subletting such contract to subcontractor, he shall not thereafter be held liable to any employee of such subcontractor for compensation or other benefits under…”
Bentley v. Jonathan Piner Constr., 802 S.E.2d 161 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 47× “We further hold that the Commission did not err in concluding Plaintiff was not an employee of Piner Construction, nor did it err in holding that Piner Construction was not Plaintiff's "statutory employer" pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-19 . Accordingly, we affirm the order of…”
Zocco v. United States, Dep't of the Army, 791 F. Supp. 595 (E.D.N.C. 1992).
· cites it 64× ““ G.S. 97-19 is not applicable to an independent contractor as distinguished from a subcontractor of the class designated by the statute.”
Purser v. Heatherlin Props., 527 S.E.2d 689 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 22× “Deputy Commissioner Wanda Blanche Taylor found that C & J Masonry was an independent contractor and was therefore not subject to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-19 (1991). Accordingly, the deputy commissioner denied Mr.”
Mayhew v. Howell, 401 S.E.2d 831 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 36× “Plaintiff contends that the Full Commission erred in affirming and adopting the opinion and award of the Deputy Commissioner who concluded that N.C.Gen.Stat. § 97-19 (Supp.1990) does not apply in this case.”
Masood v. Erwin Oil Co., 639 S.E.2d 118 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 60× “Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim on 23 February 2000 against plaintiff's uninsured employer, Iftikhar Taj Abbasi ("Abbasi"), who does business as Tri-Star Amoco Food Shop ("Tri-Star Amoco"), and against Erwin Oil Company ("Erwin Oil") as a statutory employer…”
Carroll v. Daniels & Daniels Constr. Co., 398 S.E.2d 325 (N.C. 1990).
· cites it 18× “An exception to the general rule illustrated in Youngblood is that the Act creates liability for a general contractor under N.C.G.S. § 97-19. Withers v. Black, 230 N.”
Davis v. Taylor-wilkes Helicopter Serv., Inc., 549 S.E.2d 580 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 18× “Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-19 , in effect at the time of plaintiff’s injury on 13 July 1995, plaintiff, as a subcontractor of Taylor-Wilkes, would be entitled to benefits.”
Cook v. Norvell-Mackorell Real Est. Co., 392 S.E.2d 758 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 16× “Plaintiff brings forward a single argument challenging the Commission’s finding and concluding that defendant Norvell-Mackorell was acting as agent for the owners of the property in procuring roofing services from plaintiff’s employer, Rainbow Roofing, and therefore was not…”
Southerland v. B v. Hedrick Gravel & Sand Co., 483 S.E.2d 150 (N.C. 1997).
· cites it 38× “Plaintiff’s contractual agreement to carry workers’ compensation insurance at his own expense did not constitute a written waiver of his right to coverage under N.C.G.S. § 97-19. 2. Defendants’ argument that by contracting with plaintiff to the effect that plaintiff shall…”
Greene v. Spivey, 73 S.E.2d 488 (N.C. 1952).
· cites it 14× “This contention that Spivey's insurance coverage was conditional and terminable, as urged by American Mutual, is predicated upon the theory that the insuring agreement was made by the parties in contemplation of the provisions of G.S. § 97-19 as amended. This statute provides in…”
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.