Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 55 N.E.3d 1082

Plaintiff Daniel Stolz, a concrete finisher employed by subcontractor Jostin, was injured on the Horseshoe Casino construction project and sued the general contractor Messer and several subcontractors for negligence.
Messer obtained BWC authority to act as the project’s self-insuring employer under R.C. 4123.35(0) and provided workers’ compensation coverage for its employees and employees of enrolled subcontractors (including Jostin, J & B Steel, D.A.G., and TriVersity).
Messer moved for summary judgment on immunity grounds and prevailed; enrolled subcontractors J & B Steel, D.A.G., and TriVersity also moved for summary judgment but the federal district court denied them, holding enrolled subcontractors are immune only from claims by their own employees.
The federal court certified the state-law question whether R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74 bar tort claims by employees of one enrolled subcontractor against other enrolled subcontractors on the same self-insured construction project.
The Ohio Supreme Court considered statutory text and the interplay of R.C. 4123.35(0) and R.C. 4123.74, focusing on the legal fiction that the self-insuring employer is "as if" the employer of covered subcontractor employees for workers’ compensation purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 4123.35 and 4123.74 immunize subcontractors enrolled in a self-insured construction-project plan from tort claims by employees of other enrolled subcontractors injured on the project	Stolz: statutory phrasing ("contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees") limits immunity to each employer’s own employees; enrolled subcontractors remain liable to other subcontractors’ employees	Petitioners: statute makes the self-insuring general contractor the legal employer of all covered workers and grants enrolled subcontractors the protections of the workers’ comp scheme, shielding them from such tort claims	Court: Yes. R.C. 4123.35(0) and R.C. 4123.74 create a legal fiction making the self-insuring employer the employer of covered workers and thereby immunize enrolled subcontractors from tort claims by employees of other enrolled subcontractors when the injury is compensable under Ohio workers’ compensation law

Bryan v. Hudson, 77 Ohio St.3d 376 (1997) (court must give effect to all statutory words when construing a statute)
State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 74 Ohio St.3d 543 (1996) (an unambiguous statute must be applied as written)
Ohio Neighborhood Fin., Inc. v. Scott, 139 Ohio St.3d 536 (2014) (statutes should be given their natural and most obvious import)
Kaiser v. Strall, 5 Ohio St.3d 91 (1983) (workers’ compensation exclusivity bars employee suits against co-employees for compensable injuries)
Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Wuerth, 122 Ohio St.3d 594 (2009) (a principal is vicariously liable only when an agent could be held directly liable)
Freese v. Consol. Rail Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 5 (1983) (workers’ compensation benefits are an employee’s exclusive remedy against the employer)
Daniels v. MacGregor Co., 2 Ohio St.2d 89 (1965) (right to control is a key factor in determining employment relationship for workers’ compensation)
Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312 (1944) (court applies an unambiguous statute rather than interpreting it)