Los Angeles, Calif. (August 25, 2025) - Los Angeles Partner Heather Hamby and Orange County Partner Steven Gatley recently secured summary judgment in favor of an owner, property developer and project holding company, in a wrongful death lawsuit involving a construction project incident. The Los Angeles Superior Court judge found that there were no triable issues of fact concerning whether or not workers' compensation coverage would cover the incident.
The lawsuit involved the claims of three plaintiffs, the children and dependents of the decedent, who alleged that the defendants were liable for the severe jobsite injuries and eventual death of their father from the injuries when lumbar beams fell on him while he was working at defendants' jobsite. The plaintiffs argued that the workers' compensation exclusivity doctrine did not apply to the workplace incident because the decedent was an independent contractor. They argued that the decedent used his own tools at work, was not paid through payroll, and that there was no workers' compensation coverage available because it was initially denied when the claim was opened.
Through investigation and extensive discovery, it was learned that the plaintiffs initially opened a workers' compensation claim for the incident but decided not to continue with providing the appropriate information to pursue the claim. Instead, their counsel filed the lawsuit for wrongful death in the civil court. After two rounds of amendments to the complaint - in which the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend in response to two demurrer proceedings - the plaintiffs were able to pursue their lawsuit by alleging that there was no workers' compensation insurance coverage that would cover the incident.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation. The motion relied on evidence that the decedent was an employee because he was working at the defendants' direction at the jobsite when the incident occurred and he was performing work within the usual course of defendants' business. The plaintiffs opposed the motion for summary judgment and argued that the decedent was an independent contractor and there was no workers' compensation coverage for the incident. The court found there was no triable issue of fact regarding the decedent's status as an employee, despite evidence that he worked on multiple construction projects, was paid on a per-project basis and used his own tools. The motion presented evidence to refute the claim that the decedent was an independent contractor by showing that the decedent was working at the defendants' direction and was working in the usual course of the defendants' business.
The plaintiffs also argued that the workers' compensation insurance only applied to one of the defendant-related entities and that the plaintiffs could bring a civil suit against the other two defendants separately. The court found that the single workers' compensation policy in the name of one of the defendant entities was sufficient to support a finding that there was workers' compensation insurance coverage available for the incident.
Additionally, the court was persuaded by the declaration of the defendants' risk management vice president, who stated that there was workers' compensation insurance available for the incident in the name of one of the defendant entities which would have covered work for all projects performed for all three defendants, including the project at the premises where the incident occurred. The court did not find it relevant that the workers' compensation policy did not list all three defendant entities separately as insureds. The plaintiffs did not explain why these facts created a dispute concerning whether or not the workers' compensation policy provided coverage for the workplace incident.
The success was a joint effort between the Los Angeles and Orange County offices with Mr. Gatley providing his expertise on the multiple alleged OSHA violations within the underlying lawsuit. Both offices worked on significant discovery and depositions to support the motion for summary judgment.