Campos Food Fair v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jul 23, 1987 No. A038342Published

Before: Anderson, Channell, Sabraw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an employer satisfies the requirement to "secure the payment of compensation" under Labor Code section 3700 by maintaining a valid workers' compensation insurance policy, and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove a failure to carry such insurance. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying summary judgment based on a factual dispute regarding whether the policy specifically covered the injured worker.

Issues

Whether an employer satisfies the requirement to secure the payment of compensation under Labor Code section 3700 by maintaining a standard workers' compensation insurance policy.
Whether a plaintiff must prove an employer's failure to carry workers' compensation insurance to maintain a civil action under Labor Code section 3706.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandate issued directing the trial court to grant the motion for summary judgment.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 3700 effectively defines the term “secure the payment of compensation” by providing that the employer may accomplish this by “being insured against liability to pay compensation””

“it clearly was not petitioner’s burden here to show that the policy “specifically” covered Mr. Rapoza.”

Opinion

ANDERSON, P. J.

Petitioner Campos Food Fair has filed a timely challenge to an order denying its motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b).) We agree that the motion should be granted.

[967]

Jerome Rapoza and Jennifer Rapoza, real parties in interest herein, filed an action against petitioner arising out of an injury to Mr. Rapoza which occurred when he was servicing refrigeration equipment on the roof of petitioner’s premises. Real parties allege that petitioner maintained unsafe premises and petitioner takes the position that Mr. Rapoza’s negligence was the sole cause of his injury.

Petitioner noticed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that real parties’ exclusive remedy is under workers’ compensation. In support of the motion, petitioner offered evidence that at the time of the injury Mr. Rapoza was employed by Jerry’s Refrigeration and that neither Mr. Rapoza nor Jerry’s Refrigeration had a contractor’s license. Petitioner cited

Blew

Horner

(1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1380 [232 Cal.Rptr. 660] in which the court held that an unlicensed contractor cannot be an independent contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation but he and his employees are employees as a matter of law of the person hiring the work done. They cannot maintain a civil action for damages at the workplace but must resort to the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation.

In response to the motion for summary judgment, real parties pointed out that at the time the complaint was filed, the case of

Blew

Horner

had not been decided. They requested permission to amend the complaint to allege a cause of action pursuant to section 3706 of the Labor Code.

This section provides that an injured employee may bring an action at law against his employer if the “employer fails to secure the payment of compensation.” Furthermore, section 3708 provides that in such an action, negligence of the employer is presumed and the usual defenses to a negligence action are not available.

Campos Food Fair v. Superior Court

AI Brief

ANDERSON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief