[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Stolz 

v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1567.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-1567

STOLZ v. J & B STEEL ERECTORS, INC., ET AL. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc., Slip Opinion 

No. 2016-Ohio-1567.] 

Workers’ compensation—Immunity from tort claims—Self-insured construction 

projects—R.C. 4123.35(O)—Subcontractors enrolled in a self-insuredconstruction-project plan are immune from tort claims made by other 

enrolled subcontractors’ employees who are injured or killed while working 

on the self-insured construction project and whose injury, illness, or death 

is compensable under Ohio’s workers’ compensation law. 

(No. 2015-0628—Submitted December 2, 2015—Decided April 19, 2016.) 

ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 

Western Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No. 1:14-cv-44. 

_____________________ 

 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

O’CONNOR, C.J.

{¶ 1} This case is before us on the certification of a state-law question by 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. 

The federal court asks that we determine whether Ohio’s workers’ compensation 

laws, specifically R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74, provide immunity to a subcontractor 

enrolled in a self-insured construction-project plan from a tort claim for workplace 

injury by an employee of another enrolled subcontractor on the same project. 

{¶ 2} The unambiguous language of R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74 compels our 

conclusion that subcontractors enrolled in a self-insured-construction-project plan 

are immune from tort claims made by the employees of other enrolled 

subcontractors who are injured or killed while working on the self-insured 

construction project and whose injury, illness, or death is compensable under 

Ohio’s workers’ compensation law. We therefore answer the certified state-law 

question in the affirmative. 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

{¶ 3} The federal court provided the following facts and allegations from 

which the question of law arises. 

{¶ 4} The plaintiff in the underlying action, Daniel Stolz, worked as a 

concrete finisher for Jostin Construction, Inc. (“Jostin”) at the Horseshoe Casino 

construction project in Cincinnati (“Casino Project”). Messer Construction 

Company (“Messer”) was the general contractor for the Casino Project, and Jostin 

was a subcontractor. 

{¶ 5} An accident on the job site injured Stolz, who brought negligence 

claims against Messer and against subcontractors J & B Steel Erectors (“J & B 

Steel”), Terracon Consultants, Inc. (“Terracon”), Pendleton Construction Group, 

L.L.C. (“Pendleton”), D.A.G. Construction Co., Inc. (“D.A.G.”), and TriVersity 

Construction Co., L.L.C. (“TriVersity”). Stolz claims each of the defendants had 

responsibilities related to the construction project. 
January Term, 2016 

3

{¶ 6} Prior to the accident, Messer had applied for and obtained authority 

from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) to act as the selfinsuring employer on the project under R.C. 4123.35(O). In that role, Messer was 

responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage for its own employees 

as well as the employees of enrolled subcontractors working on the Casino Project, 

including Jostin, J & B Steel, D.A.G., and TriVersity. 

{¶ 7} Messer, J & B Steel, D.A.G., and TriVersity1 moved for summary 

judgment on the basis that they were immune from Stolz’s negligence claims under 

Ohio’s workers’ compensation laws, specifically R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74. The 

district court granted summary judgment to the general contractor, Messer, as the 

self-insuring employer on the Casino Project. But the court denied summary 

judgment to subcontractors J & B Steel, D.A.G., and TriVersity, finding that an 

enrolled subcontractor on a self-insured construction project is immune only from 

claims made by its own employees and not from those made by employees of fellow 

enrolled subcontractors. 

THE QUESTION OF STATE LAW

{¶ 8} Following the summary-judgment decision, J & B Steel, D.A.G., and 

TriVersity moved the federal court to certify a question of state law to this court. 

The federal court granted the motion and certified to us the following question: 

 Whether Ohio Rev. Code §§ 4123.35 and 4123.74 provide 

immunity to subcontractors enrolled in a Workers’ Compensation 

self-insurance plan from tort claims made by employees of [other] 

enrolled subcontractors injured while working on the self-insured 

project. 

 

 

1

 J & B Steel, Messer, D.A.G., and TriVersity are the petitioners in this action. Terracon and 

Pendleton, who were not enrolled subcontractors, did not assert an immunity defense. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

(Brackets sic.) We accepted the question, 142 Ohio St.3d 1515, 2015-Ohio-2341, 

33 N.E.3d 64, and granted Messer’s motion to be designated as a petitioner 

alongside the three petitioning subcontractors, 143 Ohio St.3d 1423, 2015-Ohio3021, 34 N.E.3d 935. 

ANALYSIS

Applicable canons of statutory construction 

{¶ 9} When a court interprets the meaning of a statute, “[w]ords and phrases 

shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and 

common usage,” R.C. 1.42, and the court must give effect to all of the statute’s 

words, Bryan v. Hudson, 77 Ohio St.3d 376, 380, 674 N.E.2d 678 (1997). “If the 

meaning of the statute is unambiguous and definite, it must be applied as written 

and no further interpretation is necessary.” State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local 

School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463 (1996). 

Additionally, a court must give effect to the natural and most obvious import of a 

statute’s language, avoiding any subtle or forced constructions. Ohio 

Neighborhood Fin., Inc. v. Scott, 139 Ohio St.3d 536, 2014-Ohio-2440, 13 N.E.3d 

1115, ¶ 22. 

Ohio’s statutory scheme for workers’ compensation 

{¶ 10} Ohio’s workers’ compensation scheme is codified in Chapter 4123 

of the Revised Code. 

{¶ 11} R.C. Chapter 4123 requires most employers to pay premiums into 

the state insurance fund that administers and pays out workers’ compensation 

claims. R.C. 4123.35(A). In return for these premium payments, an employer, in 

most cases, receives immunity from claims for common-law and statutory damages 

made by its employees “for any injury, or occupational disease, or bodily condition, 

received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out of his 

employment” or for any resulting death. R.C. 4123.74. 
January Term, 2016 

5

{¶ 12} Ohio’s workers’ compensation law contains a special carve-out for 

“self-insuring employers,” who do not pay into the state insurance fund. R.C. 

4123.35(B). Employers eligible for the carve-out “may be granted the privilege to 

pay individually compensation, and furnish medical, surgical, nursing, and hospital 

services and attention and funeral expenses directly to injured employees or the 

dependents of killed employees.” Id. In return for providing this coverage, selfinsuring employers receive the same protections against employee claims as those 

paying into the state fund. R.C. 4123.74. 

{¶ 13} At issue in this case is a specific class of self-insuring employers 

recognized in the workers’ compensation scheme: those involved in a construction 

project that is “scheduled for completion within six years after the date the project 

begins” and has total estimated costs in excess of $100 million. R.C. 4123.35(O). 

As Messer did with respect to the Casino Project, the general contractor of a 

qualifying construction project may seek to self-insure the project and provide 

workers’ compensation coverage for its own employees as well as the employees 

of “[a]ll contractors and subcontractors who perform labor or work or provide 

materials for the construction project” or “[a]ll contractors and * * * a substantial 

number of all the subcontractors who perform labor or work or provide materials 

for the construction project.” R.C. 4123.35(O). In return for providing this 

coverage and satisfying other related statutory obligations, the self-insuring 

employer gains protection against claims arising from the work-related injury or 

death of any of its own employees as well as the employees of any subcontractors 

that are enrolled in the self-insurance plan. R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74. 

{¶ 14} A subcontractor who enrolls in the contractor’s self-insurance 

program does not pay workers’ compensation premiums to the state for the payroll 

that it reports for work performed at the construction site by covered employees. 

R.C. 4123.35(O). According to Stolz, subcontractors interested in enrolling in the 

self-insurance program deduct their costs for workers’ compensation premiums 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

from their bids to the contractor because this expense will be undertaken by the 

self-insured employer for the project. 

Application of R.C. Chapter 4123 to the certified question 

{¶ 15} The parties agree that a general contractor that is a self-insuring 

employer on the project receives immunity from suits by its own employees as well 

as the employees of enrolled subcontractors arising from injuries or death occurring 

in the course of work on the project. It is also undisputed that the subcontractor 

who actually employs a worker who is injured or killed on the job is protected from 

that worker’s claims. At issue here is whether an enrolled subcontractor is subject 

to claims by an employee of a different enrolled subcontractor working on the same 

self-insured construction project. 

{¶ 16} In support of his argument that enrolled subcontractors are not 

immune from suits by other enrolled subcontractors’ employees on the project, 

Stolz relies on the placement of the apostrophes in the phrase “contractor’s or 

subcontractor’s” in the following portion of R.C. 4123.35(O): 

The contractors and subcontractors included under a certificate 

issued under this division are entitled to the protections provided 

under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code with 

respect to the contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees who are 

employed on the construction project which is the subject of the 

certificate, for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, injuries, 

or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those employees’ 

employment on that construction project. 

 (Emphasis added). Stolz argues that because the italicized phrase employs singular 

possessive nouns, each subcontractor is protected only from claims brought by its 

own employees. 
January Term, 2016 

7

{¶ 17} Petitioners contend that all subcontractors enrolled in the 

construction project’s self-insurance plan are immune from suit by any covered 

employee. They rely on a different portion of the same paragraph, stating, 

“[C]ontractors and subcontractors included under a certificate issued under this 

division are entitled to the protections provided under this chapter * * *.” Id. 

Petitioners argue that this statutory language does not explicitly limit immunity to 

the employer-subcontractor and the self-insuring general contractor. Instead, they 

assert, it offers expansive protection against claims from the employee of any 

enrolled subcontractor against any other enrolled subcontractor. We find that the 

key to answering the certified question lies in R.C. 4123.35(O), though the relevant 

passage is not quoted by the parties. 

{¶ 18} Amid the complex statutory framework for workers’ compensation, 

the General Assembly has created a legal fiction in which the contractor who is the 

“self-insuring employer” is the legal employer, for workers’ compensation 

purposes, of all employees of enrolled subcontractors who are engaged in work at 

the construction site. 

{¶ 19} R.C. 4123.35(O) provides: 

A self-insuring employer who complies with this division is 

entitled to the protections provided under this chapter and Chapter 

4121. of the Revised Code with respect to the employees of the 

contractors and subcontractors covered under a certificate issued 

under this division for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, 

injuries, or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those 

employees’ employment on that construction project, as if the 

employees were employees of the self-insuring employer * * *. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

(Emphasis added.) It is with this language that the General Assembly established 

the legal fiction that the self-insuring employer is the employer of all covered 

employees, including employees of enrolled subcontractors, for purposes of 

workers’ compensation. That fiction is reiterated later in R.C. 4123.35(O) with the 

instruction that “[t]he contractors and subcontractors included under a certificate 

issued under this division shall identify in their payroll records the employees who 

are considered the employees of the self-insuring employer listed in that certificate 

for purposes of this chapter * * *.” (Emphasis added). 

{¶ 20} When R.C. 4123.35(O) is read in conjunction with R.C. 4123.74, as 

it must be, see Bryan v. Hudson, 77 Ohio St.3d 376, 380, 674 N.E.2d 678 (1997), 

the statute provides that the self-insuring employer, who through the legal fiction 

is the only employer on the project, will “not be liable to respond in damages at 

common law or by statute for any injury, or occupational disease, or bodily 

condition, received or contracted by any employee in the course of or arising out 

of” work on the self-insured construction project, R.C. 4123.74. 

{¶ 21} It is also through this legal fiction that the General Assembly gives 

effect to the provision in the law that “[t]he contractors and subcontractors included 

under a certificate issued under this division are entitled to the protections provided 

under this chapter * * *.” As described above, R.C. 4123.35(O) provides that for 

the purpose of workers’ compensation matters, the employer of all workers on the 

self-insured construction project is the self-insuring employer. Thus, the General 

Assembly has made clear that for purposes of workers’ compensation, enrolled 

subcontractors do not have employees working on the construction project. 

Accordingly, those subcontractors cannot be liable for the workplace injuries of 

their own employees on the construction project under the workers’ compensation 

scheme—the general contractor is the responsible party. 

{¶ 22} Ohio law also limits recovery through tort law by employees or their 

families for workplace injury or death from any enrolled subcontractor on the 
January Term, 2016 

9

project, to the same extent that recovery is limited by workers’ compensation law. 

This is true because under the law an employee “who is injured as a result of a coemployee’s negligent acts, who applied for benefits under Ohio’s workers’ 

compensation statutes, and whose injury is found to be compensable thereunder is 

precluded from pursuing any additional common-law or statutory remedy against 

such co-employee.” Kaiser v. Strall, 5 Ohio St.3d 91, 449 N.E.2d 1 (1983), 

paragraph one of the syllabus. See also R.C. 4123.741. Accordingly, a worker who 

may be compensated with workers’ compensation benefits is prevented from suing 

a co-employee (any other employee on the job site who is enrolled in the selfinsuring employer’s plan), and thus the worker cannot seek to hold the coemployee’s actual employer vicariously liable in order to recover damages in tort. 

See Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594, 

2009-Ohio-3601, 913 N.E.2d 939, ¶ 22 (“a principal is vicariously liable only when 

an agent could be held directly liable”). 

Stolz’s Argument 

{¶ 23} In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the language on which 

Stolz focuses his argument: 

The contractors and subcontractors included under a certificate 

issued under this division are entitled to the protections provided 

under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code with 

respect to the contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees who are 

employed on the construction project which is the subject of the 

certificate, for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, injuries, 

or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those employees’ 

employment on that construction project. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

R.C. 4123.35(O). That language relates to the scope of protection a subcontractor 

enjoys through the self-insurance program. The next sentence also relates to the 

limited class of covered employees: “[t]he contractors and subcontractors included 

under a certificate issued under this division shall identify in their payroll records 

the employees who are considered the employees of the self-insuring employer 

listed in that certificate for purposes of this chapter * * *.” Id. 

{¶ 24} Read in context with the entirety of R.C. 4123.35(O), the import of 

this language is to clarify that only those employees working on the covered 

construction project are included in the self-insurance program and that they are 

covered only while they are engaged in work for the construction project. The fact 

that a subcontractor is covered under the certificate for the self-insured construction 

project does not exempt the subcontractor from its independent obligation to obtain 

workers’ compensation coverage for those employees who are not working on the 

construction project. Thus, the only reasonable interpretation of “contractor’s or 

subcontractor’s employees” in R.C. 4123.35(O), on which Stolz relies, is as a 

limitation on which employees are covered under the self-insurance plan, not which 

employers are entitled to immunity. 

{¶ 25} Because our interpretation is based on the plain, unambiguous 

language of the statute, we do not delve into the legislative history of the pertinent 

provisions. Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312, 55 N.E.2d 413 (1944), paragraph 

five of the syllabus (“An unambiguous statute is to be applied, not interpreted”). 

{¶ 26} Nor may we reach Stolz’s policy argument that the social bargain of 

workers’ compensation begins to break down when a construction project is selfinsured. Although we recognize that it has some merit, that argument must be 

directed to the General Assembly, rather than to this court. 

CONCLUSION

{¶ 27} We conclude that R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74 create a legal fiction 

that a self-insuring employer for a self-insured construction project is the single 
January Term, 2016 

11 

employer, for workers’ compensation purposes, of all employees working for 

enrolled subcontractors on that project. Accordingly, Ohio’s workers’ 

compensation scheme provides immunity to subcontractors enrolled in a selfinsured construction project from the claims of employees of other enrolled 

subcontractors who are injured or killed while working on the project, provided that 

the injury, illness, or death is compensable under Ohio’s workers’ compensation 

laws. Thus, we answer the certified state-law question in the affirmative. 

So answered. 

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

FRENCH, J., dissents with an opinion that PFEIFER, J., joins. 

_____________________ 

FRENCH, J., dissenting. 

{¶ 28} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I agree that if the 

meaning of the statute is unambiguous and definite, we must apply it, and we need 

not interpret it further. State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of 

Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463 (1996). In my view, however, the 

correct analysis of R.C. 4123.35(O) does not require that any paragraph perform 

double duty in delineating the workers’ compensation status of the self-insuring 

employer, enrolled contractors and subcontractors, and employees of the enrolled 

contractors and subcontractors. Instead, each of four sequential paragraphs in R.C. 

4123.35(O) sets up an aspect of the workers’ compensation scheme applicable to 

self-insured construction projects. 

{¶ 29} The sixth paragraph of R.C. 4123.35(O) creates a legal fiction in 

which the self-insuring employer is the employer of every enrolled contractor and 

subcontractor’s employees for workers’ compensation purposes. It says: 

 A self-insuring employer who complies with this division is 

entitled to the protections provided under this chapter and Chapter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

4121. of the Revised Code with respect to the employees of the 

contractors and subcontractors covered under a certificate issued 

under this division for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, 

injuries, or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those 

employees’ employment on that construction project, as if the 

employees were employees of the self-insuring employer, provided 

that the self-insuring employer also complies with this section. No 

employee of the contractors and subcontractors covered under a 

certificate issued under this division shall be considered the 

employee of the self-insuring employer listed in that certificate for 

any purposes other than this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the 

Revised Code. Nothing in this division gives a self-insuring 

employer authority to control the means, manner, or method of 

employment of the employees of the contractors and subcontractors 

covered under a certificate issued under this division. 

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 4123.35(O). 

{¶ 30} R.C. 4123.35(O) requires the self-insuring employer to administer 

and pay these employees’ eligible workers’ compensation claims. In return, the 

self-insuring employer receives protection from negligence suits. In short, 

workers’ compensation benefits are an employee’s exclusive remedy against the 

self-insuring employer. See Freese v. Consol. Rail Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 5, 7, 445 

N.E.2d 1110 (1983), citing Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 35. 

{¶ 31} The next paragraph—the one the parties primarily contest—extends 

the protections of R.C. Chapter 4121 and 4123 to the enrolled contractors and 

subcontractors. But it specifies that each enrolled contractor or subcontractor 

receives this protection with respect solely to its own employees. It provides: 
January Term, 2016 

13 

The contractors and subcontractors included under a 

certificate issued under this division are entitled to the protections 

provided under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code 

with respect to the contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees who 

are employed on the construction project which is the subject of the 

certificate, for death or injuries that arise out of, or death, injuries, 

or occupational diseases that arise in the course of, those employees’ 

employment on that construction project. 

(Emphasis added.) R.C. 4123.35(O) (seventh paragraph). 

{¶ 32} This provision is necessary because the enrolled contractors and 

subcontractors do not actually pay workers’ compensation premiums for their 

employees on the project. But the contractors and subcontractors’ employees 

remain employees of the contractor and subcontractor employers—even for 

workers’ compensation purposes—because the contractors and subcontractors 

retain “the right to control the manner or means of performing the work.” Daniels 

v. MacGregor Co., 2 Ohio St.2d 89, 206 N.E.2d 554 (1965), syllabus; R.C. 

4123.35(O) (sixth paragraph, discussing self-insuring employer’s protections under 

R.C. Chapters 4121 and 4123). And generally, to get the protection of the workers’ 

compensation statutes—immunity from common-law or statutory damages—an 

employer must pay into the state insurance fund for its employees. Daniels at the 

syllabus, citing Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 35, and R.C. 4123.74. 

Therefore, only the language of the seventh paragraph of R.C. 4123.35(O) extends 

the protections of R.C. Chapters 4121 and 4123 to these actual employers who do 

not pay into the state insurance fund. That is, the statute creates a second legal 

fiction in which the contractor or subcontractor employers receive the benefits of 

the workers’ compensation system without directly contributing to it. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

{¶ 33} The next paragraph limits the self-insuring employer’s workers’ 

compensation responsibility to those employees who actually work on a particular 

project. It begins: 

The contractors and subcontractors included under a 

certificate issued under this division shall identify in their payroll 

records the employees who are considered the employees of the selfinsuring employer listed in that certificate for purposes of this 

chapter and Chapter 4121. of the Revised Code, and the amount that 

those employees earned for employment on the construction project 

that is the subject of that certificate. 

R.C. 4123.35(O) (eighth paragraph). 

{¶ 34} This paragraph provides the mechanism that limits the self-insuring 

employer’s responsibility for administering and paying workers’ compensation 

claims to the enrolled contractors’ and subcontractors’ employees who actually 

work on the self-insured construction project. It accomplishes this by requiring the 

enrolled contractors and subcontractors to identify in their payroll records their 

employees who, under the statute’s legal fiction, are considered employees of the 

self-insuring employer. 

{¶ 35} The next and, for our purposes, final paragraph of R.C. 4123.35(O) 

confirms that fellow-servant immunity does not bar employees of one enrolled 

contractor or subcontractor from suing employees of another enrolled contractor or 

subcontractor. In short, this paragraph preserves an employee’s right to sue 

tortfeasors employed by other enrolled contractors or subcontractors. The majority 

fails to consider this provision. It provides: 
January Term, 2016 

15 

Nothing in this division shall be construed as altering the 

rights of employees under this chapter and Chapter 4121. of the 

Revised Code as those rights existed prior to September 17, 1996. 

Nothing in this division shall be construed as altering the rights 

devolved under sections 2305.31 and 4123.82 of the Revised Code 

as those rights existed prior to September 17, 1996. 

R.C. 4123.35(O) (ninth paragraph). 

{¶ 36} By its plain language, this provision preserves an injured employee’s 

rights as they existed prior to September 17, 1996—the effective date of Sub.H.B. 

No. 245, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2955, which first introduced provisions 

substantially similar to those now contained in R.C. 4123.35(O), id. at 2971-2976. 

Then, as now, a worker who was injured on the job and who received workers’ 

compensation benefits from his employer’s participation in the workers’ 

compensation system could sue a tortfeasor who was employed by a different 

employer, subject to the subrogation rights of the workers’ compensation 

administrator or a self-insuring employer. See R.C. 4123.931 (enacted in 1995, 

Am.Sub.H.B. No. 278, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3581, 3595-3597; setting forth 

rights of subrogation with respect to a workers’ compensation claimant’s claims 

against third-party tortfeasors); R.C. 4123.93 (defining claimant, statutory 

subrogee, and third party for purposes of subrogation provision). Therefore, an 

injured employee of one enrolled contractor or subcontractor may sue an employee 

of another enrolled contractor or subcontractor who caused the injury, as if the legal 

fiction created in R.C. 4123.35(O) did not exist. 

{¶ 37} In short, based on a comprehensive reading of the relevant 

provisions, I disagree with the majority’s ultimate holding that R.C. 4123.35(O) 

and 4123.74 preclude the employees of one enrolled contractor or subcontractor 

from suing in tort employees of another contractor or subcontractor—and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

16 

recovering from the other contractor or subcontractor under respondeat superior 

principles. Because I would answer the certified question in the negative, I dissent. 

PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 

_____________________ 

Goodson & Co. and Brett C. Goodson, for respondent. 

Kohnen & Patton, L.L.P., and Colleen M. Blandford, for petitioner J & B 

Steel Erectors, Inc. 

Patsfall, Yeager & Pflum, L.L.C., Stephen M. Yeager, and Steve Patsfall, 

for petitioners D.A.G. Construction Co., Inc., and TriVersity Construction Co., 

L.L.C. 

Green & Green, Jane M. Lynch, and Jared A. Wagner, for petitioner Messer 

Construction Co. 

_____________________