{
  "id": 8524179,
  "name": "DONALD W. CARROLL, Employee, Plaintiff v. DANIELS AND DANIELS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Employer, and/or N.C. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carroll v. Daniels & Daniels Construction Co.",
  "decision_date": "1990-01-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 8910IC592",
  "first_page": "649",
  "last_page": "654",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 N.C. App. 649"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E.2d 281",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574896
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0300-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E.2d 479",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547054
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/35/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S.E.2d 591",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566740
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E.2d 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.C. App. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522128
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/62/0314-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 S.E.2d 137",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 11",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8594820
      ],
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0011-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 461,
    "char_count": 10331,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5916105598991863e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8184077527299854
    },
    "sha256": "cf5e21bdf17b8d53512311ec845faba3b009cd3696839cdb6145bec9e3e08582",
    "simhash": "1:3d359ff81061c58e",
    "word_count": 1542
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:35.242103+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHNSON and COZORT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DONALD W. CARROLL, Employee, Plaintiff v. DANIELS AND DANIELS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Employer, and/or N.C. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nPlaintiff brought this action against two defendants: (1) plaintiff\u2019s employer at the time of the accident and (2) employer\u2019s insurance carrier at that time. This appeal was brought by N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, defendant employer\u2019s insurance carrier and does not address plaintiff\u2019s action against Daniels and Daniels Construction Company, Inc., plaintiff\u2019s employer. The holding of this Court will therefore address only the responsibility of the insurance carrier under the Workers\u2019 Compensation statutes.\nDefendant-appellant contends that the insurance carrier should not have to pay benefits to the plaintiff because (1) plaintiff is an independent contractor and not entitled to benefits intended for an \u201cemployee\u201d under North Carolina law, and (2) neither the employer nor the carrier agreed to bind the carrier to pay workers\u2019 compensation to the plaintiff.\nI: Plaintiff as Independent Contractor\nThe Industrial Commission determined that plaintiff was a \u201csubcontractor\u201d and not an employee of the employer. The test for analyzing whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee is whether the employer has retained the right to control the details of doing the work rather than merely requiring definite results conforming to the contract. Hayes v. Bd. of Trustees of Elon College, 224 N.C. 11, 29 S.E.2d 137 (1944). The evidence establishes that plaintiff owned and operated his own carpentry business and retained control over the manner and method of his work. Employer paid plaintiff per lineal foot and plaintiff worked at his own speed with his work subject only to employer\u2019s final approval. Plaintiff concedes in his brief: \u201cThe Plaintiff was technically a subcontractor of the Defendant-Employer.\u201d\nDefendant contends: \u201cSince plaintiff was not an employee, the Commission has no jurisdiction and plaintiff cannot recover benefits under the [North Carolina Workers\u2019 Compensation] Act.\u201d Defendant further alleges that G.S. 97-19, as it read at the time of plaintiff\u2019s accident, did not provide recovery from a general contractor for an injured subcontractor. Plaintiff states, on the other hand, that based on the principle of estoppel, \u201c[t]he facts in this case would make it unconscionable for the carrier to be allowed to deny coverage.\u201d The Industrial Commission concluded that, even though the plaintiff was in fact a \u201csubcontractor\u201d of defendant employer, defendant employer had \u201chowever, agreed to provide workers\u2019 compensation insurance coverage for the plaintiff\u201d (emphasis added). Thus, the Commission stated: \u201cThe defendant carrier, therefore, is estopped from denying said coverage.\u201d\nII: Alleged Failure to Bind the Carrier\nDefendant-carrier states that \u201c[t]he Commission\u2019s findings of fact do not support its conclusion that the Carrier is estopped to deny workers\u2019 compensation coverage to plaintiff.\u201d Defendant\u2019s allegation is based on three ways in which plaintiff failed to bind carrier.\n(1) The carrier first contends that he \u201cmade no representations to plaintiff regarding workers\u2019 compensation coverage.\u201d The Commission found that the only direct contact between carrier and plaintiff occurred after the accident when an agent for the carrier contacted plaintiff in order to obtain a written statement. That agent later advised plaintiff that he was not covered. The carrier therefore never told plaintiff that he was covered by carrier nor took any direct action that would have caused plaintiff to believe that he had workers\u2019 compensation insurance with the carrier. However, employer routinely added subcontractors to its \u201cWorkmen\u2019s Compensation Insurance\u201d at the time it employed plaintiff, and there is no evidence that carrier had ever prohibited that action. Carrier never asked for a hearing on the issue of whether or not plaintiff should be covered under carrier\u2019s coverage. The Industrial Commission correctly held that the defendant-carrier is estopped from denying this coverage.\n(2) The carrier further alleges that it never accepted the premium deducted by employer. Carrier relies on Moore v. Upchurch Realty Company, Inc., 62 N.C. App. 314, 302 S.E.2d 654 (1983), stating that this case \u201cshould control the situation now before this Court.\u201d Moore is distinguishable in that plaintiff in Moore was never told that he was covered, whereas, in the case at bar, employer agreed to provide the coverage and understood that providing the insurance was a condition precedent to employing plaintiff. Plaintiff started working with employer on 27 April 1987, was injured only three days later on 30 April 1987 and received his first and only paycheck dated 1 May 1987 from which the 7% workers\u2019 compensation insurance premium had been deducted. There is no evidence that carrier ever received the premium which was deducted from plaintiff\u2019s paycheck. Since carrier routinely accepted premiums from employer for the coverage of subcontractors, it can be assumed that carrier would have followed that practice in this case. The carrier cannot now be allowed to object to the practice in which it had acquiesced.\n(3) Finally, carrier states that employer had no authority to bind the carrier. A supervisor for employer, Stuart Crank, agreed to provide workers\u2019 compensation insurance for plaintiff when the subcontract agreement was executed and to deduct money (7%) from plaintiff\u2019s paycheck to provide that coverage. Carrier states that no agency relationship existed between Crank and carrier and that there is \u201cno evidence of any implied authority for Crank to act on behalf of Carrier.\u201d In fact, an implied authority had existed between carrier and employer because of employer\u2019s former practice of insuring subcontractors for employer. Employer acted in conformity with that practice by promptly filing Form 19 with the Industrial Commission to report plaintiff\u2019s injury and by telling plaintiff\u2019s wife and medical providers that plaintiff was covered under employer\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation insurance. Carrier is estopped from denying coverage based on an alleged lack of authority by the employer to bind carrier.\nThe principle of estoppel may apply in workers\u2019 compensation cases and was properly employed in this case by the Industrial Commission. See Aldridge v. Foil Motor Co., 262 N.C. 248, 136 S.E.2d 591 (1964); Britt v. Colony Construction Co., 35 N.C. App. 23, 240 S.E.2d 479 (1978). The Workers\u2019 Compensation Act is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose to provide compensation for injured workers and its benefits should not be denied by a technical, narrow or strict construction. Stevenson v. City of Durham, 281 N.C. 300, 188 S.E.2d 281 (1972). Since the carrier routinely allowed employer to add subcontractors to their workers\u2019 compensation insurance, as long as carrier received a premium in the amount of seven percent from the subcontractor\u2019s gross wages, carrier was correctly estopped by the Industrial Commission from denying coverage for plaintiff.\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHNSON and COZORT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LEWIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Connor, Bunn, Rogerson & Woodard, P.A., by James F. Rogerson, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Maupin Taylor Ellis & Adams, P.A., by Richard M. Lewis and Jack S. Holmes, for defendant-appellant N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DONALD W. CARROLL, Employee, Plaintiff v. DANIELS AND DANIELS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Employer, and/or N.C. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Carrier, Defendants\nNo. 8910IC592\n(Filed 4 January 1990)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 81 (NCI3d)\u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 subcontractor \u2014 estoppel of carrier to deny coverage\nAlthough plaintiff was a subcontractor and thus an independent contractor in performing carpentry work on a house the employer was building, the employer\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation carrier was estopped to deny coverage for plaintiff where the employer\u2019s superintendent agreed to deduct 7\u00b0/o from plaintiff\u2019s pay to provide workers\u2019 compensation coverage under the employer\u2019s policy as a condition precedent to the subcontract with plaintiff; the employer routinely added subcontractors to its workers\u2019 compensation insurance; the carrier routinely accepted premiums from the employer for subcontractors; and the employer thus had the implied authority to bind the carrier to provide workers\u2019 compensation insurance for a subcontractor.\nAm Jur 2d, Workmen\u2019s Compensation \u00a7\u00a7 171, 172, 679.\nAPPEAL by defendant-carrier from opinion filed 16 December 1988 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Heard by the Full Commission on an appeal by defendant-carrier from an opinion by Deputy Commissioner John Charles Rush holding defendant-carrier liable for plaintiff\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation benefits. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 November 1989.\nPlaintiff is a carpenter who did work for general contractors. He was hired by defendant Daniels and Daniels Construction Company [employer] in order to do the boxing and siding on a house that employer was building. Prior to beginning work, plaintiff discussed his payment as well as his workers\u2019 compensation insurance coverage with employer\u2019s residential construction superintendent. In that discussion, the superintendent agreed to deduct money (7%) from plaintiff\u2019s pay to provide workers\u2019 compensation coverage under the defendant employer\u2019s policy. Plaintiff began work under the terms of a subcontract agreement with employer. Two days later, the scaffolding upon which plaintiff worked collapsed and plaintiff was injured. At the time of the accident, employer was insured by North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company [carrier]. While plaintiff was in the hospital, the superintendent told plaintiff\u2019s wife that employer\u2019s workers\u2019 compensation policy would pay the related hospital and medical expenses as well as provide compensation.\nWhen plaintiff filed a claim for coverage of his injuries, carrier denied that claim and plaintiff subsequently requested a hearing with the Industrial Commission. The Deputy Commissioner heard this matter and issued an opinion and award in which he concluded that carrier was estopped to deny plaintiff workers\u2019 compensation insurance coverage. He directed employer and carrier to pay compensation and medical benefits to plaintiff. Defendants appealed this decision to the Full Commission which affirmed the Deputy Commissioner\u2019s decision. Defendants appeal.\nConnor, Bunn, Rogerson & Woodard, P.A., by James F. Rogerson, for plaintiff-appellee.\nMaupin Taylor Ellis & Adams, P.A., by Richard M. Lewis and Jack S. Holmes, for defendant-appellant N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0649-01",
  "first_page_order": 681,
  "last_page_order": 686
}
