Case Title: Welch v. Home Two, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Welch v. Home Two, Inc. (2000-236); 172 Vt. 632, 783 A.2d 419

[Filed 19-Sept-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-236

                               MAY TERM, 2001

Norman and Bobbie Jo Welch	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
Home Two, Inc. 	                       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. S204-00 CnC

                                                Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Norman and Bobbie Jo Welch appeal from an order of the Chittenden
  Superior Court  dismissing their negligence claim against defendant, Home
  Two, Inc.  Plaintiffs contend that the  court erred in finding that Home
  Two, Inc. was Norman Welch's statutory employer within the  meaning of the
  Workers' Compensation Act, 21 V.S.A. §§ 622, 624 (The Act), and that
  plaintiffs'  common law claims are therefore barred under the
  employer-immunity of the Act.  We affirm.

       In January 1998, Norman Welch worked as a project supervisor for
  Leclair Brothers Inc., an  electrical subcontractor, at a construction
  project at the Charlotte Library.  Home Two, Inc. was the  general
  contractor of the Charlotte Library construction project.  On January 21,
  while working at the  construction site, Welch injured his shoulder,
  attempting to ascend a staircase which he claims was  negligently selected
  and installed by Home Two.  Due to the accident, Welch was disabled from 
  work for one year, underwent surgery on his shoulder and sustained a
  permanent partial impairment.  As a result of his injury, Welch received
  workers' compensation benefits through Leclair Brothers'  coverage.

       No written employment contracts were executed between Home Two and
  either Leclair  Brothers, or Welch.  However, Home Two regularly contracted
  with independent electrical  subcontractors, such as Leclair Brothers, to
  perform work on its construction projects.

       After his injury, Welch (FN1) brought a negligence action against Home
  Two, claiming that  it negligently installed a staircase at the
  construction site, and knowingly created "an unreasonable  risk of danger."
  Home Two filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), arguing
  that as  Welch's statutory employer under the Act, 21 V.S.A. §§ 622, 624,
  it was entitled to immunity from  suit by an injured employee of an
  independent subcontractor. Welch opposed the motion, filing a 

 

  statement of material facts and an affidavit. (FN2)   The superior court
  granted Home Two's motion  to dismiss in a one sentence opinion which
  states, "General contractor having control of premises is  statutory
  employer." 

       On appeal, Welch claims the court erred in concluding that Home Two
  was Welch's  employer.  We disagree.  The rights and remedies of Vermont's
  Workers' Compensation Act granted  to an employee on account of a personal
  injury for which the employee is entitled to compensation  under the
  provisions of the Act are intended to be exclusive, "[e]xcept as provided
  in subsection  618(b) and section 624 of [title 21]."  21 V.S.A. § 622. 
  Here, Welch having elected to claim  workers' compensation, (see § 618(b))
  asserts that his acceptance of compensation benefits should  not be deemed
  to be an election of remedies because Home Two is not Welch's employer
  within the  meaning of 21 V.S.A. § 624(a).   Welch asserts that Home Two
  cannot be considered an employer 

 

  within the ambit of § 624(a) because (1) Home Two did not control the
  worksite premises, and (2)  because Welch received workers' compensation
  benefits from subcontractor, LeClair Brothers, and  not Home Two, the
  general contractor. 

       In essence, Welch attempts to preserve the option of collecting
  workers' compensation  benefits from the subcontractor and suing the
  general contractor for negligence by application of a  statutory employer
  "test" that would insulate a general contractor from the definition of
  "employer."   We have long held that in determining whether an
  employer-employee relationship is covered by the  Workers' Compensation
  Act, the language of the law "is all-embracing."  Morrisseau v. Legac, 123 
  Vt. 70, 76,