Cory Cottingham v. Tutor Perini Building Corp, 17-1622

Cottingham, an employee of subcontractor Carson Concrete, was injured on a Philadelphia construction site when stacked concrete panels fell during a crane lift; he recovered workers’ compensation from Carson.
He sued Tutor Perini Building Corporation (TPBC, construction manager) and Keating Building Company (affiliate) for negligence arising from the same accident.
TPBC contracted with the property owner as Construction Manager and exercised daily on-site supervision, safety orientation, weekly safety meetings, audits, and disciplinary authority; TPBC maintained an on-site office and safety supervisors.
Keating is an affiliate acquired by Tutor Perini; some site personnel had historical ties to Keating and W-2s listing Keating, but the record showed those safety supervisors followed TPBC policies and identified TPBC/Tutor Perini as employer.
The District Court granted summary judgment for TPBC (statutory-employer immunity under Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act) and for Keating (no legal duty to Cottingham). The Third Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TPBC is a statutory employer entitled to immunity under the PA Workers’ Compensation Act	TPBC lacked "occupancy or control" of the site because Keating performed safety functions and some documents list Keating	TPBC exercised actual control and occupancy through contractual duties, on-site offices, daily supervisors, safety programs, and disciplinary authority	TPBC satisfied the statutory-employer factors (including actual control/occupancy); immunity affirmed
Whether Keating owed Cottingham a duty of care as to site safety	Keating performed safety roles and thus assumed responsibility for safety oversight	No evidence Keating assumed safety responsibility; site safety duties were performed and controlled by TPBC	Keating owed no duty to Cottingham; summary judgment for Keating affirmed

Peck v. Del. Cty. Bd. of Prison Inspectors, 814 A.2d 185 (Pa. 2002) (statutory-employer doctrine and purpose explained)
McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A. 424 (Pa. 1930) (elements of statutory-employer test)
Braun v. Target Corp., 983 A.2d 752 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (occupancy or control need not be exclusive; actual presence suffices)
Kelly v. Thackray Crane Rental, Inc., 874 A.2d 649 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (construction manager occupancy and control analysis)
Joyce v. Super Fresh Food Mkts., Inc., 815 F.2d 943 (3d Cir. 1987) (factors for determining employer/control between affiliated corporations)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard when nonmovant bears burden)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and materiality standard for summary judgment)
R.W. v. Manzek, 888 A.2d 740 (Pa. 2005) (elements of negligence and duty as a question of law)
Emery v. Leavesly McCollum, 725 A.2d 807 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) (construction manager occupancy and duty analysis)
Leonard v. Commonwealth, 771 A.2d 1238 (Pa. 2001) (no duty where defendant lacked possession or control of site)