The 1099 Roofer: Employee Status, Exclusive Remedy, and the Uninsured Employer
Carlos signed a one-page 'Independent Contractor Agreement' with Gateway Roofing. He is paid $32 an hour, must be at the shop at 7 a.m., wears a Gateway shirt, drives a company truck loaded with Gateway's ladders and harnesses, and takes direction all day from Gateway's foreman. He sets his own lunch break and supplies his own hammer. Gateway carries no workers' compensation policy and issues Carlos a 1099 each January. In June, Carlos fell from a two-story roof. Medical bills are $210,000 and he will be off work about nine months. Gateway's owner says, 'He's a contractor - he's on his own.' The homeowner's insurer has sent a reservation of rights, and Carlos's cousin, an attorney, is asking about suing Gateway.
1. Is Carlos an employee or an independent contractor for workers' compensation purposes? What facts drive the answer?
Read the worked answer
He is an employee. The label in the contract and the 1099 are evidence, never controlling. The test turns on the right to control the manner and means of the work:
Favoring employee status: fixed hourly wage; mandatory 7 a.m. reporting to the employer's shop; company truck, ladders and harnesses; company uniform; continuous day-to-day direction from the foreman; work that is Gateway's core business rather than a peripheral service.
Favoring contractor status: supplies his own hand tools; controls his own lunch break. These are minor compared with the control indicators above.
Consequences: Gateway was legally obligated to carry workers' compensation for him. Because it did not, it is an uninsured employer: it faces the workers' compensation exposure directly, potential penalties and stop-work orders from the state, and an audit catch-up on its general liability policy, which almost certainly charges premium for uninsured subcontractors. Gateway's owner should also expect the Division to review whether other 'subcontractors' are similarly misclassified - one injury frequently triggers a full payroll audit.
2. Had Gateway carried a policy, what would Carlos have been entitled to - and what does he get now that there is none, including the exclusive remedy question?
Read the worked answer
Under a policy, benefits are statutory and fault is irrelevant:
- All reasonable and necessary medical treatment, with no cap and no copay, for as long as treatment is needed.
- Temporary total disability at 66⅔% of his average weekly wage, subject to the state maximum, once he is off work beyond the waiting period.
- Permanent partial disability based on the rating for his injury, paid on a statutory schedule.
- Vocational rehabilitation where the injury prevents a return to roofing.
Now, with no policy: benefits are still owed, and the state's uninsured-employer fund mechanism (in Missouri, the Second Injury Fund) can be tapped to pay them when the employer is uninsured. But the uninsured employer loses the exclusive remedy shield. With coverage, Carlos could not sue Gateway in tort - workers' compensation was his sole remedy absent an intentional tort. Without coverage, he can bring a negligence action, and Gateway's tort defenses are narrowed. That is the real financial exposure: a nine-month lost-wage, $210,000-medical claim plus a lifetime earning-capacity argument, with no policy limit standing behind it.
3. Carlos's attorney also wants to sue the homeowner. Analyze that claim and whether the homeowner's HO policy is likely to respond.
Read the worked answer
Liability theory. A homeowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor's employee for the manner of the work, but an exception applies where the work is inherently dangerous - and roofing at height is routinely treated that way. The duty is nondelegable, so hiring a competent roofer does not discharge the homeowner's own duty of care. The homeowner's actual conduct matters too: did he direct Carlos to work in wet conditions, or leave a known hazard on the roof?
Coverage under the HO policy. Section II liability coverage is triggered by bodily injury arising from the premises, and the homeowner's own negligence is precisely what Section II insures. Two exclusions must be run:
- The workers' compensation exclusion bars injury to persons eligible for workers' compensation benefits under a policy covering the insured. Carlos is Gateway's employee, not the homeowner's, so this exclusion does not fit unless the homeowner is deemed a statutory employer.
- The business pursuits exclusion may apply if the homeowner is a developer or landlord rather than a householder; a one-off roof replacement on a personal residence is not a business pursuit.
Bottom line: the defense obligation is broad and the carrier must defend even a weak claim, but the homeowner's strongest position is that the real exposure sits with Gateway. The carrier will tender to Gateway and pursue a comparative-fault allocation against the uninsured employer.