NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-93 (2026)

Employers required to carry insurance or prove financial ability to pay for benefits; employers required to post notice; self-insured employers regulated by Commissioner of Insurance

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 97 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Every employer subject to the provisions of this Article relative to the payment of compensation shall either:

(1) Insure and keep insured his liability under this Article in any authorized corporation, association, organization, or in any mutual insurance association formed by a group of employers so authorized; or

(2) Repealed by Session Laws 1997-362, s. 5.

(3) Obtain a license from the Commissioner of Insurance under Article 5 of this Chapter or under Article 47 of Chapter 58 of the General Statutes.

(b) through (d) Repealed by Session Laws 1997-362, s. 5.

(e) Every employer who is in compliance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall post in a conspicuous place in places of employment a notice stating that employment by this employer is subject to the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act and stating whether the employer has a policy of insurance against liability or qualifies as a self-insured employer. In the event the employer allows its insurance to lapse or ceases to qualify as a self-insured employer, the employer shall, within five working days of this occurrence, remove any notices indicating otherwise. (1929, c. 120, s. 67; 1943, c. 543; 1973, c. 1291, s. 12; 1979, c. 345; 1983, c. 728; 1985, c. 119, s. 1; 1993, c. 120, ss. 1, 2; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 679, s. 8.2; 1995, c. 193, s. 64; c. 471, s. 1; 1997-362, s. 5.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1949–2025 · leading case: Putman v. Alexander, 670 S.E.2d 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
Putman v. Alexander, 670 S.E.2d 610 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 23× “§ 97-94(d) for her failure to bring MMC into compliance under N.C.G.S. § 97-93 when she had the ability and authority to do so.”
Woodson v. Rowland, 407 S.E.2d 222 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 6× “N.C.G.S. § 97-93 (1985). This distinction alone justifies the higher "substantial certainty" threshold for civil recovery against employers.”
Johnson v. Herbie's Place, 579 S.E.2d 110 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “However, defendants argue that the Industrial Commission’s findings that “defendant-employer failed to maintain a policy of workers’ compensation insurance” and that defendant “Kennedy failed to exercise his authority and ability to bring defendant-employer into compliance” do…”
Morales-Rodriguez v. Carolina Quality Exteriors, Inc., 698 S.E.2d 91 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “The Commission awarded plaintiff temporary total disability benefits and medical expenses, assessing a ten percent late penalty for late payment of compensation, assessing penalties for failing to secure workers’ compensation insurance, assessing a civil penalty against…”
Rivera v. Trapp, 519 S.E.2d 777 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “Next Trapp challenges the Commission’s findings and conclusions that Trapp willfully neglected to bring Schuck into compliance with the requirements of G.S. § 97-93 (Supp. 1998). Trapp claims that *304 he did not know that Schuck lacked Workers’ Compensation insurance until…”
Carroll v. Daniels & Daniels Constr. Co., 398 S.E.2d 325 (N.C. 1990). · cites it 4× “N.C.G.S. § 97-93 only requires employers to insure their liability under the Act.”
Allred v. Exceptional Landscapes, Inc., 743 S.E.2d 48 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “Wright’s third argument, she contends that the Commission erred in ordering her to pay a civil penalty for the failure to bring Exceptional Landscapes into compliance with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-93 because she did not have the ability and authority to bring…”
Seguro-Suarez by & Through Connette v. Key Risk Ins. Co., 819 S.E.2d 741 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d 694 , 698 (2010) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-93 (2007) ). And, just as "[t]he primary purpose of th[e] compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance is to compensate innocent victims who have been injured by financially irresponsible motorists[,]" Chantos , 293 N.”
Southerland v. B v. Hedrick Gravel & Sand Co., 483 S.E.2d 150 (N.C. 1997). · cites it 8× “Even though a certificate of insurance would not have shown that plaintiff failed to elect to cover himself as a sole proprietor, and even though plaintiff had complied with N.C.G.S. § 97-93 by having coverage for his employees, the undersigned is of the opinion that N.”
Cook v. Norvell-Mackorell Real Est. Co., 392 S.E.2d 758 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “stating that such subcontractor has complied with G.S. 97-93 [requiring that employers carry workers’ compensation insurance] .”
Cananwill, Inc. v. EMAR Grp., Inc., 250 B.R. 533 (M.D.N.C. 1999). · cites it 5× “N.C.Gen.Stat. § 97-93. 20 .National Union, however, does concede that it was required to comply with regulations of other stales.”
North Carolina Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Bd. of Trs., 691 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 97-93 (2007). "The term `employer'" includes, inter alia, "the State and all political subdivisions thereof, [and] all public and quasi-public corporations therein.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-93(a) — 2 cases
Reece v. Forga, 531 S.E.2d 881 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
Zocco v. United States, Dep't of the Army, 791 F. Supp. 595 (E.D.N.C. 1992).
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.