* The Honorable Peter H. Beer, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0403n.06 Filed: May 16, 2005 No. 04-5493 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES A. LOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UTICON, INC.; WOERHEIDE ENTERPRISES, INC.; DAVE TURNER Defendants-Appellees, JAVIER STEEL CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT BOWLING GREEN

Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; COOK, Circuit Judge; and BEER, District Judge. *
BEER, District Judge. Charles Lock appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his tort claims as barred by Kentucky’ s Workers’ Compensation Act, K.R.S. Chapter 342. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision.

INo. 04-5493 Lock, SAFECO v. Uticon, Inc., Javier Steel

- 2 - In February of 1999, Utic on, Inc. (Uticon) was awarded a bid from the Kentucky Department of Transportation (KYDOT) to build a bridge and related structures on Kentucky Highway 101 in Edmonson County, Kentucky. Uticon en tered into a subcontract with Javier Steel Corporation (Javier Steel) to supply and install all of the steel work on the bridge. The steel work included welding L-shaped steel support angles to steel inserts in the pre-cast concrete support beams of the bridge. Corrugated steel decking, known as stay-in-place (SIP) decking, was then fastened to the support angles to form a solid decking upon which concrete would be poured to make the bridge surface. Uticon installed fall safety lines (lifelines) along the bridge so workers and inspectors could “tie off” to limit the fall distance should they fall from the bridge beams.
Lock was employed by Javier Steel as a welder who was welding support angles. Under the subcontract, Javier Steel was responsible for provi ding workers’ compensation benefits for all of its employees. Javier Steel ordered the steel, in cluding the support angles and the SIP decking, from its steel supplier, Topikal d/b/a/ Woerheide Enterprises (Topikal). Before completing the installation of the support angles and the steel decking, oneof Javier Steel’s employees, Joe Deck, noticed possible cracking in the support angles. Deck wa s concerned that the angles could possibly break under the heavy weight of the concrete poured on the decking to form the roadway.
Officials from KYDOT, Uticon, Javier Steel, and Topikal met and agreed that Topikal would replace the steel angles. Topikal ag reed to pay Javier Steel for th e cost of replacing the affected support angles, including the material, labor, insuran ce, and taxes. Javier Steel began replacementNo. 04-5493 Lock, SAFECO v. Uticon, Inc., Javier Steel

- 3 - of the support angles, which required taking up secti ons of the SIP decking, removing the old angles, welding on new angles and replacing the decking.

Javier Steel notified Uticon that it did not feel that the safety lines that had previously been removed needed to be reinstalled because the employees would be working on solid decking. On April 6, 2000, Lock fell 40 feet from the bridge into the creek bed below when he stepped in a hole in the SIP decking. He sustained serious injuri es. Lock brought an action against Uticon and Topikal. Javier Steel was made a third-party de fendant. Safeco Insurance Company, Javier Steel’s insurance carrier, was an intervening plaintiff.
Uticon filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act, K.R.S. Chapter 342, bars Lock ’s action against Uticon and Topikal. Lock opposed the motion claiming that Javier Steel wa s not working under its contract with Uticon, but rather under a warranty or remediation contract withits vendor, Topikal. Lock claims he fell and was injured because Uticon did not provide a fall safety system for which it was contractually obligated under its contract with KYDOT. Thus, Lo ck alleged that Uticon was not protected from liability by the workers’ compensation provisions.
The district court granted Uticon’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Lock was working for Javier Steel at the time of the accide nt, and, therefore, Uticon, as contractor, was immune from tort liability under the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Lock appeals this decision.No. 04-5493 Lock, SAFECO v. Uticon, Inc., Javier Steel

- 4 - II
We review a grant of summary judgement denovo, applying the same standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c) used by the district court. Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685, 689 (6 thCir. 1999) (en banc).

III
The district court concluded that Lock’s lawsuit is barred because of the operation of Kentucky’s Workers’ Compensation Act, K.R.S. Chapter 342. K.R.S. § 342.690(1) provides that if an employer secures payment of workers’ co mpensation under Chapter 342, “the liability of such employer . . . shall be exclusive and in the [sic] place of all other liability of such employer . . . . For purposes of this section, the term ‘employer’ shall include a ‘contractor’ covered by subsection (2) of K.R.S. 342.610, whether or not the subcontr actor has in fact, secured the payment of compensation.” See Granus v. North American Philips Lighting Corp., 821 F.2d 1253, 1256-57 (6 th Cir. 1987) (quoting K.R.S. § 342.690(1)).
The statute “was enacted to discourage owne rs and contractors from hiring financially irresponsible subcontractors and thus eliminate workmen’s compensation liability.” Tom Ballard Co. v. Blevins , 614 S.W.2d 247, 249 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980). “If a defendant qualifies as a contractor, by the same token, ‘it has no liability in tort to an injured employee of a subcontractor.’” Granus , 821 F.2d 1257 (quoting Fireman’s Fund Ins. v. Sherman & Fletcher , 705 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Ky. 1986)).No. 04-5493 Lock, SAFECO v. Uticon, Inc., Javier Steel

- 5 - Appellant, Lock, seeks to convince this Court that he was working for Topikal at the time of his injury, and thus, he may su e Uticon for failure to provide a fa ll safety system for the bridge. We do not agree. Uticon, as general contractor , contracted with KYDOT to furnish a completed project to the state, and subcontracted with Javier Steel to provide the materials and labor to build the steel frame for the bridge. Javier simply bought the steel from Topikal. Topikal had no authority, as the material supplier, to hire a welder to replace the angle irons on the bridge. Uticon was the only entity with that authority.
As well, it is undisputed that a contractor- s ubcontractor relationship existed between Uticon and Javier Steel. Moreover, installing steel angles and SIP decking is certainly an integral part of building bridges. As such, Lock’s exclusive remedy against Uticon is under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act.

IV
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the District Court.