Court Opinion

ID: 9849559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:42:32.312864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:18.039133
License: Public Domain

*429HUNTER, Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Erwin Oil was plaintiffs statutory employer pursuant to section 97-19 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The majority’s reasoning in this case would greatly- expand the definition of a statutory employer beyond its intended scope. I therefore respectfully dissent.
The Commission concluded that section 97-19 did not apply to the instant case. I agree with the Commission’s conclusion. The majority recognizes that “G.S. § 97-19, by its own terms, cannot apply unless there is first a contract for the ,performance of work which is then sublet.” Cook v. Norvell-Mackorell Real Estate Co., 99 N.C. App. 307, 310, 392 S.E.2d 758, 760 (1990) (emphasis added). “Consequently, G.S. § 97-19 may apply as between two independent contractors, one of whom is a subcontractor to the other; but it does not apply as between a principal, i. e., an owner, and an independent contractor.” Id.
In the instant case, the evidence tends to show that Erwin Oil, a' petroleum wholesaler, purchased gasoline from various producers, including Amoco. Erwin Oil in turn leased a convenience store, TriStar Amoco, and equipment to Abbasi, who independently operated the store. Erwin Oil also supplied Abbasi with gasoline on consignment for sale at Tri-Star Amoco, and Abbasi received a commission per gallon of gasoline sold at Tri-Star Amoco. Erwin Oil was the owner of the gasoline sold at Tri-Star Amoco. The primary purpose of the contract between Erwin Oil and Amoco was an agreement to purchase gasoline. Although the majority is correct that the contract between Erwin Oil and Amoco also required Erwin Oil to “ ‘offer for sale, or cause to be offered for sale, representative amounts of each grade of Amoco-based gasoline, currently offered to [Erwin Oil], necessary to satisfy public demand[,]’ ” this was not a task then sublet to Abbasi. The majority points to an addendum in the lease agreement requiring Abbasi to maintain the Tri-Star Amoco location according to “AMOCO’s IMAGE STANDARDS and to operate the facility open to the public 18 hours per day, 7 days a week.” (Emphasis added.) Contrary to the majority’s broad interpretation regarding gasoline pumps, the addendum language is silent as to any specific requirement regarding the sale or marketing of gasoline. The lease agreement between Erwin Oil and Abbasi does not require Abbasi to perform any task required by the contract between Erwin Oil and Amoco. Erwin Oil clearly owned the gasoline offered for sale at TriStar Amoco, for which Abbasi merely received a commission. Erwin *430Oil owned the premises which Abbasi leased. Thus, Abbasi was not a subcontractor for Erwin Oil. Rather, the nature of the relationship between Erwin Oil and Abbasi was that of an owner and an independent contractor.
As Erwin Oil did not sublet its duties to Abbasi, Abbasi was not a subcontractor, nor was Erwin Oil a principal contractor. See Mayhew v. Howell, 102 N.C. App. 269, 273, 401 S.E.2d 831, 834 (Industrial Commission properly found that the defendant homebuilding company did not sublet any contract for the performance of work to framers and that defendant was not a “ ‘principal contractor’ ” with regard to subdivision under construction but the “ ‘owner’ ”), affirmed per curiam, 330 N.C. 113, 408 S.E.2d 853 (1991). Section 97-19 therefore does not apply, and Erwin Oil cannot be considered plaintiff’s statutory employer. The majority’s interpretation would make Erwin Oil a statutory employer of every employee hired by any independent contractor leasing property owned by Erwin Oil where Amoco gasoline is sold. I believe this interpretation far exceeds the intended scope of section 97-19, and I would affirm the opinion and award of the Commission denying plaintiff’s claim for benefits.