Opinion ID: 1316396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Temporary Employee Status

Text: In his second issue, Hittel contends that WOTCO owes a legal duty to him because SSI did not pay worker's compensation coverage premiums for him. He claims that his status as a temporary employee for whom an independent contractor has not paid worker's compensation coverage is comparable to that of an innocent bystander and he is entitled to the same protections of an innocent bystander. The differences between the protections afforded to an innocent bystander and the employee of an independent contractor were discussed in Jones v. Chevron , where we observed: The employee, on the other hand, is covered by worker's compensation even if the contractor is insolvent. The owner should not have to pay for injuries caused by the contractor when the worker's compensation system already covers those injuries The owner has in a sense already assumed financial responsibility for the injuries because the independent contractor passes along his worker's compensation costs to the owner. Jones, 718 P.2d at 899 (citation omitted). In this case, Trademark paid worker's compensation coverage premiums for Hittel, who did receive benefits. Additionally, his personal injury suit against SSI resulted in a settlement of their full liability insurance policy limit. It can safely be assumed that all costs associated with worker's compensation and insurance coverage were passed along to WOTCO, and in these particular circumstances we believe that the Jones rule remains applicable despite Hittel's status as a temporary employee.