A. When any person (referred to in this section as "owner") undertakes to perform or execute any work which is a part of his trade, business or occupation and contracts with any other person (referred to in this section as "subcontractor") for the execution or performance by or under such subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by such owner, the owner shall be liable to pay to any worker employed in the work any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if the worker had been immediately employed by him.
B. When any person (referred to in this section as "contractor") contracts to perform or execute any work for another person which work or undertaking is not a part of the trade, business or occupation of such other person and contracts with any other person (referred to in this section as "subcontractor") for the execution or performance by or under the subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by such contractor, then the contractor shall be liable to pay to any worker employed in the work any compensation under this title which he would have been liable to pay if that worker had been immediately employed by him.
C. When the subcontractor in turn contracts with still another person (also referred to as "subcontractor") for the performance or execution by or under such last subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by the first subcontractor, then the liability of the owner or contractor shall be the same as the liability imposed by subsections A and B of this section.
D. 1. Liability for compensation pursuant to this section may not be imposed against any person who, at the time of an injury sustained by a worker engaged in the maintenance or repair of real property managed by such person, and for which injury compensation is sought:
a. Was engaged in the business of property management on behalf of the owners of such property and was acting merely as an agent of the owner;
b. Did not engage in and had no employees engaged in the same trade, business or occupation as the worker seeking compensation; and
c. Did not seek or obtain from such property's owners, or from any other property owners for whom such person rendered property management services, profit from the services performed by individuals engaged in the same trade, business or occupation as the worker seeking compensation.
2. For purposes of this subsection, "the business of property management" means the oversight, supervision, and care of real property or improvements to real property, on behalf of such property's owners.
3. For purposes of this subsection, "property owners" or "property's owners" means (i) owners in fee of such property or (ii) persons having legal entitlement to the use or occupation of such property at the time of the injury for which liability is sought to be imposed pursuant to this section.
Code 1950, §§ 65-26 through 65-28; 1968, c. 660, §§ 65.1-29 through 65.1-31; 1991, c. 355; 1999, c. 877.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
119
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case:
Turf Care, Inc. v. Henson, 657 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
Turf Care, Inc. v. Henson, 657 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 11× “While the commission analyzed this issue under subsection B of Code § 65.2-302, we find the facts of this case fall under subsection A of that Code section, which provides as follows: When any person (referred to in this section as “owner”) undertakes to perform or execute any…”
Jeffreys v. The Uninsured Emp.'s Fund, 823 S.E.2d 476 (Va. 2019).
· cites it 20× “In the alternative, Jeffreys contended, each defendant was his statutory employer pursuant to Code § 65.2-302 because he had been performing work within their trade, business, or occupation.”
Uninsured Emp.'s Fund v. Clark, 494 S.E.2d 474 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “It argues the work being performed at the time of Clark’s injury was not part of the “trade, business or occupation” of IRS.”
R. Richard Wilton, Jr Inc v. Roger A. Gibson, 471 S.E.2d 832 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 16× “Wilton argues that the commission erred in finding that Wilton was claimant’s statutory employer under Code § 65.2-302. Finding no error, we' affirm the commission.”
Coulter v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 484 (E.D. Va. 2003).
· cites it 8× “See Va.Code § 65.2-302 (defining “statutory employer”), § 65.”
Hudson v. Jarrett, 606 S.E.2d 827 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 4× “2-307, because under Code § 65.2-302, VIT was the statutory employer of both Hudson and Jarrett and, therefore, the two workers were "fellow employees.”
States Roofing Corp. v. Bush Constr. Corp., 426 S.E.2d 124 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “of the whole or any part of the work undertaken” by the contractor and, therefore, is “liable to pay to any worker employed in the work any compensation under [the Act]” for which it “would have been liable .”
Pfeifer v. Krauss Const. Co. of Virginia, 546 S.E.2d 717 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 9× “Because Pfeifer was not Krauss' common-law employee, the controlling statute is Code § 65.2-302. With the names of the parties hereto added in brackets, it provides in relevant part as follows: § 65.”
MARK FIVE CONST. v. Castle Contractors, 645 S.E.2d 475 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Gonzales independently of Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302 ." Castle Contractors filed a demurrer, contending "the [Amended] Motion for Judgment fails to allege[] sufficient facts, which if proven, would support a claim for indemnification pursuant" to Code § 65.”
Pfeifer v. Krauss Constr. Co. of Virginia, Inc., 546 S.E.2d 717 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 9× “Because Pfeifer was not Krauss’ common-law employee, the controlling statute is Code § 65.2-302. With the names of the parties hereto added in brackets, it provides in relevant part as follows: § 65.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302(0) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302(A) — 53 cases
Turf Care, Inc. v. Henson, 657 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“While the commission analyzed this issue under subsection B of Code § 65.2-302, we find the facts of this case fall under subsection A of that Code section, which provides as follows: When any person (referred to in this section as “owner”) undertakes to perform or execute any…”
Jeffreys v. The Uninsured Emp.'s Fund, 823 S.E.2d 476 (Va. 2019).
“In the alternative, Jeffreys contended, each defendant was his statutory employer pursuant to Code § 65.2-302 because he had been performing work within their trade, business, or occupation.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302(A)(1) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302(B) — 22 cases
R. Richard Wilton, Jr Inc v. Roger A. Gibson, 471 S.E.2d 832 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
“Wilton argues that the commission erred in finding that Wilton was claimant’s statutory employer under Code § 65.2-302. Finding no error, we' affirm the commission.”
Jeffreys v. The Uninsured Emp.'s Fund, 823 S.E.2d 476 (Va. 2019).
“In the alternative, Jeffreys contended, each defendant was his statutory employer pursuant to Code § 65.2-302 because he had been performing work within their trade, business, or occupation.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302(D) — 4 cases
Turf Care, Inc. v. Henson, 657 S.E.2d 787 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“While the commission analyzed this issue under subsection B of Code § 65.2-302, we find the facts of this case fall under subsection A of that Code section, which provides as follows: When any person (referred to in this section as “owner”) undertakes to perform or execute any…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302(a) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 65.2-302(b) — 1 case
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.