Opinion ID: 2617609
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limitation on excepted employees' right to sue

Text: In 1987, the General Assembly amended the Act to address the rights and liabilities of independent contractors who, like owner-officers, have a limited right to reject coverage under the Act. House Bill 1215, was introduced in response to the court of appeals' decision in Oliver Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission of Colorado, 680 P.2d 1308 (Colo.App.1983), cert. denied (Colo.1984), where the court held that prime contractors could be liable for injuries to independent sub-contractors who had elected to reject coverage under the Act. See Hearing on H.B. 1215 Before the Senate Committee on Business Affairs and Labor, 56th Gen.Assem., 1st Reg.Sess. (hearing tape 87-12, Feb. 26, 1987, at 14:25-15:32); Hearing on H.B. 1215 Before the House Business Committee, 56th Gen.Assem., 1st Reg.Sess. (hearing tape 87-22, Apr. 8, 1987, at 14:47-15:22), (hereinafter House Hearing on H.B. 1215). After Oliver, general contractors took exception to premium increases required to cover employees who had voluntarily rejected coverage. Though the facts in Oliver differ from the case at bar, the legislation was written to apply to officer-owners who similarly reject compensation coverage. [4] When the General Assembly limited rejecting employees' rights to make any claims under the Act, it created a corresponding limitation on those individuals' rights to sue separately for tort damages. [5] The limitation was premised on the belief that when an individual chooses to opt out of Workmens' Comp. [they] can't have the best of both worlds. House Hearing on H.B. 1215 (Mary Ann Tebedo, R., El Paso, Bill sponsor). That is, an individual rejecting coverage to save money on the premiums cannot then come back and sue the employer under the common law for work related injuries. The bill proponents explained [w]e provided a no-fault insurance plan for you [employers], and we really want you to take advantage of it. [6] Id. The cap on tort recovery was intended so that businesses would know what their liability will be, and can plan for that in any business decision. Id. When the Committees considered the remedies available to excepted employees the testimony focused on the employers' ability to forecast potential claims. The potential liability of co-employees was not considered.