Lack of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Voids Contractor’s License
Post 4892
Posted on September 18, 2024 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://rumble.com/v5fa86i-unlicensed-contractor-cannot-enforce-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/-x4MigCCmJo
As a condition precedent to the issuance of a contractor’s license, continued maintenance, or reinstatement of a contractor’s license, California law requires applicants and licensees to have on file at all times a current and valid certificate of workers’ compensation insurance.
In American Building Innovation LP v. Balfour Beatty Construction, LLC, et al., G062471, G062965, California Court of Appeals (September 3, 2024) the contractor was unable to recover the contract payments because it did its work without a license.
NO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, NO LICENSE, NO RIGHT TO BE PAID
Failure to obtain or maintain the required coverage results in the automatic and immediate suspension of the contractor’s license by operation of law. In California a party who was not duly licensed at all times during the performance of its contracting work generally cannot bring or maintain an action to collect compensation for that work.
As a result of the policy cancellation, ABI’s contractor’s license was suspended mid-project. Fully aware it was unlicensed and uninsured; ABI nevertheless continued its work.
ABI sued to recover amounts allegedly owed for its work on the project. The Board accepted ABI’s representation and retroactively reinstated its contractor’s license under section 7125.1.
The Court needed to determine if ABI was duly licensed at all times during the performance of its work; if not, section 7031 bars ABI from bringing or maintaining the present action. In this case, the lapse in coverage was not beyond ABI’s control. The record demonstrates the policy cancellation occurred because ABI chose not to pay billed insurance premiums. The insurer’s retroactive reinstatement of the policy following that settlement was essentially meaningless because it occurred long after the statute of limitations ran on any workers’ compensation claims, rendering the coverage illusory.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ABI was on the project from August 2017 through May 2018. ABI concedes that its work on the project required it to be licensed and that it had to maintain workers’ compensation insurance throughout the project in order to maintain its license.
When ABI began its work on the project in August 2017, it had a workers’ compensation insurance policy issued. ABI did not pay approximately $33,000 in outstanding premiums, which State Fund asserted were owed for ABI’s 2015-2016 policy based on an audit State Fund had performed in 2017.
ABI received State Fund’s notice of cancellation; it nonetheless failed to make payment. Accordingly, State Fund canceled ABI’s 2017-2018 policy on January 25, 2018.
As a result of the policy cancellation, ABI’s contractor’s license was suspended by operation of law on January 25, 2018. The record establishes that Vo, ABI’s principal, knew that ABI’s policy had been canceled, that its license had been suspended, and that ABI was therefore not to engage in construction activities.
As for the construction project, Balfour Beatty, the general contractor, refused to pay ABI for its work. The Board apparently accepted ABI’s representations, as it reinstated ABI’s license retroactively; the Board also revised ABI’s license history to remove the January 2018 suspension under section 7125.2.
The trial court issued a statement of decision finding in favor of Defendants on the 31st affirmative defense, concluding ABI was “not ‘a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance’ of the contract” and therefore “may not ‘bring or maintain’ this action ‘or recover’ compensation for its work.” The court then entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against ABI. ABI filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
DISCUSSION
The trial court concluded that section 7031 bars ABI from maintaining this action because it was not ‘”a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance”‘ of its contract from July 2017 through May 2018.
The Court of Appeal concluded that ABI was not entitled to retroactive reinstatement of its license under section 7125.2. Because ABI applied for retroactive reinstatement of its license more than 90 days (in this case, nearly three years) after the effective date of the certificate of insurance, the Board could only reinstate the suspended license if “the failure to have a certificate on file was due to circumstances beyond the control of [ABI].” Neither the policy cancellation nor the continued failure to have insurance on file were outside ABI’s control.
ABI’s representations were false. State Fund canceled the 2017-2018 policy effective January 25, 2018, because ABI made a considered decision not to pay the premiums due on the previous policy.
When ABI elected not to pay the premium due or procure workers’ compensation insurance elsewhere, ABI compromised the safety and security of its workers. It was not until over two years later, when faced with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, that ABI agreed to pay the 2015-2016 policy premium so that its 2017-2018 policy would be retroactively reinstated.
The legitimacy of the public policies underlying California’s licensing laws and the validity of section 7031 are well established. Section 7031 applies despite injustice to the unlicensed contractor. Section 7031 represents a legislative determination that the importance of deterring unlicensed persons from engaging in the contracting business outweighs any harshness between the parties. The result is a stiff all-or-nothing penalty for unlicensed work.
The judgment and postjudgment order were affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
The key to the public policy requiring contractors to be licensed is the protection of the public. The statute is Draconian but fair. If you do construction work without a license you cannot enforce the right to be paid for your work. ABI refused to pay the premium charged by the workers’ compensation insurer, who appropriately cancelled the policy, notified the licensing board who immediately suspended the license. ABI’s efforts to reinstate its license, by presenting false testimony, was ineffective because at the time ABI did the work it was unlicensed.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
