The 1099 Framing Crew and the Man-Lift
Ridgeline Builders is general contractor on a Sparks apartment project. It subcontracts framing to Sierra Framing, which holds a Nevada business license but let its workers' compensation policy lapse in March. Sierra has four framers on site; Ridgeline's superintendent directs the crew daily, supplies the man-lift, and sets fall-protection rules. In June, Alonso, a Sierra framer, falls two floors and fractures his pelvis; medicals reach $310,000. His supervisor had told him to skip his harness because it would slow production. Alonso sues Ridgeline, alleging a defective man-lift and failure to enforce fall protection. Ridgeline's WC carrier denies, arguing Alonso is Sierra's employee, not Ridgeline's.
1. Is Alonso covered by Ridgeline's workers' compensation policy? Build the argument.
Read the worked answer
Two independent routes, and both point the same way.
Route 1 - the independent contractor test fails. Nevada applies a statutory multi-factor test for construction subcontractors. To be treated as a genuine independent contractor, Sierra needed a separate business, its own license, its own equipment and tools, control over its own methods, and - critically - its own workers' compensation coverage. Sierra fails the coverage element outright, and the control facts point to Ridgeline: a Ridgeline superintendent directing the crew daily, supplying the lift, and dictating fall-protection practice is the opposite of an independent operation.
Route 2 - the uninsured-subcontractor rule. Nevada places responsibility for workers' compensation on the contractor when a subcontractor's employees are uninsured. The lapse does not transfer the injury to Alonso's own resources or leave him bare.
Result: Alonso is treated as Ridgeline's employee for workers' compensation purposes. Ridgeline's carrier owes medical and indemnity - temporary total disability, then permanent partial based on the impairment rating. The carrier should also audit Sierra's payroll, charge premium for uninsured subcontractor exposure, and consider a retro adjustment.
The denial is wrong on its face. The carrier's own policy likely contains the alternate-employer or subcontractor provisions that defeat the position it is taking.
2. Does the exclusive remedy doctrine bar Alonso's tort suit against Ridgeline?
Read the worked answer
The general rule bars it - but this file creeps toward the exception.
The rule. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for an employee's accidental on-the-job injury. Once Alonso is treated as Ridgeline's employee, the negligent man-lift and lax fall-protection claims are exactly the kind of fault the system was built to absorb. Those theories die.
The exception. Intentional injury falls outside the exclusive remedy. The supervisor's instruction to skip the harness is the strongest fact Alonso has. The question is whether that was recklessness (still barred) or conduct with substantial certainty of injury (not barred). A one-time order to skip a harness during a production push is closer to recklessness; a pattern of disabling safety equipment with knowledge that a fall would follow moves toward the exception. Take statements from the crew and pull the daily safety logs.
Where the suit survives regardless. The man-lift manufacturer and lessor are third parties. That action proceeds, and Ridgeline's WC carrier holds a subrogation lien against any third-party recovery - which is often the most valuable asset in the file.
Do not miss: if Sierra were the employer and remained uninsured, Nevada would let Alonso sue Sierra in tort. Ridgeline's immunity depends on its own policy actually responding, which is one more reason to reject the carrier's denial.
3. Alonso's injury happened instead at 6:00 a.m. while driving to the site. How does that change the analysis?
Read the worked answer
The coming-and-going rule applies, and it usually means no coverage.
Injuries sustained traveling to and from work are generally not compensable because the employment relationship has not begun. The employee is on a personal commute.
Then test the recognized exceptions:
- Employer-provided transportation. If Sierra or Ridgeline supplied a company truck or paid for the ride, coverage attaches.
- Travel as part of the job. A traveling employee whose work requires constant movement is covered door to door.
- Special mission. If the foreman told Alonso to swing by the yard and load materials first, that errand is within the course of employment and the rule flips.
- Premises rule. Injury in a parking lot the employer owns or controls is compensable, because the employee has reached the premises.
Facts to run down: Did Sierra reimburse mileage? Was Alonso carrying company tools or materials? Was there a mandatory stop at the shop? Was he already on site property when the vehicle was struck? Each answer changes the outcome.
The examiner's point: the same injured worker, the same employer, and the same coverage dispute can flip entirely on a fact about where the trip began. Never answer a course-and-scope question without establishing the route, the purpose, and who paid for it.