Wentworth v. HENRY C. BECKER CUSTOM BUILDING LTD.
459 Mass. 768
Mass.2011Background
- In 2005, Becker, as general contractor, hired an uninsured subcontractor, Great Green, for waterproofing at a Newburyport residence.
- An explosion at the site killed Timothy B. Wentworth and seriously injured Ezekiel Wentworth, both Great Green employees who lacked workers' compensation insurance.
- In 2007, the insurer agreed to lump-sum settlements under G. L. c. 152, § 18, for Timothy and Ezekiel's workers’ compensation claims.
- In 2006, Wentworth sued Becker for negligence, wrongful death, and related claims arising from the incident.
- Becker moved for summary judgment claiming § 23 immunity because the worker claims were released via § 23 when lump-sum settlements were accepted.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment; the Appeals Court reversed, concluding error in applying § 23 to the uninsured-subcontractor context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 23 immunity applies to a general contractor paying for an uninsured subcontractor’s employee | Wentworth contends Becker is not insured and has no direct employee relationship with Timothy/Ezekiel, so § 23 immunity does not apply. | Becker argues § 23 provides immunity even where the employee is not Becker’s direct employee via an insured contract. | Immunity under § 23 does not apply; must have an insured direct-employer employee nexus. |
| Interpretation of the plain language of § 23 and its scope | § 23 immunizes claims if the worker accepts compensation from the insured’s act, regardless of direct employment status. | § 23 should be construed to include broader immunity for contractors hiring uninsured subs. | Plain-language reading limits § 23 to the insured and direct-employer employees; does not cover uninsured-subcontractor employees. |
| Relation of § 18 and § 15 to third-party suits against general contractors | § 18 and § 15 do not bar third-party actions; workers can pursue common-law claims against non-insured entities. | § 18 and § 15 are designed to prevent bypassing the workers’ compensation system and shield insured employers. | Third-party actions are not barred against general contractors obligated to pay under § 18; § 15 preserves such actions. |
| Whether prior authorities relied upon by the Superior Court are controlling | Prevailing readings show § 23 does not apply to uninsured-subcontractor employees. | Earlier decisions support broad § 23 immunity. | Prior unpublished and published authorities are distinguishable; the court relies on plain statutory language. |
Key Cases Cited
- Correia v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 388 Mass. 342 (1983) (legislative intent to fully compensate injured workers)
- Berger v. H.P. Hood, Inc., 416 Mass. 652 (Mass. S.J.C. 1993) (exclusivity provisions discussed within UM benefits context)
- Searcy v. Paul, 20 Mass. App. Ct. 134 (1985) (common employment doctrine and immunity history)
- Tindall v. Denholm & McKay Co., 347 Mass. 100 (1964) (statutory framework underpinning § 18 rationale)
- Kniskern v. Melkonian, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 461 (2007) (employment status in § 23 context; lump-sum settlement impact)
- Wentworth v. Henry C. Becker Custom Bldg. Ltd., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 507 (2010) (appeals court decision on § 23 interpretation)
- Russell v. Donnell, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 1126 (2004) (unpublished memorandum relied on by trial court)
- Lang v. Edward J. Lamothe Co., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 231 (1985) (interpretation of 1971 amendments to § 15)
- Fitzgibbons's Case, 374 Mass. 633 (1978) (broader construction of workers’ compensation protections)