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
GEICO GETS BIG JUDGMENT AGAINST NO FAULT FRAUDSTERS
Post 4893
See the full video at and at
On August 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and various GEICO companies (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, Civil RICO violations, and a declaratory judgment, alleging that Defendants schemed to submit fraudulent no-fault insurance claims.
Receiving no response to the suit Plaintiffs moved for default judgment on the common law fraud claim against Mr. St. Louis and 1 Brooklyn (collectively, the “Defaulting Defendants”).
In Government Employees Insurance Company, et al v. Wilkins Williams Medical, P.C., Eric St. Louis, 1 et al, No. 22-CV-4608 (KAM)(JRC), United States District Court, E.D. New York (September 6, 2024) the USDC entered default judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
...
Loss Payable Clause Limits Recovery Only if Insured Can Recover
Post 4892
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gEGkSsDZ, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gE_4qtbJ and at https://lnkd.in/gTF-dpW7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Following a fire that damaged a malt beverage store owned by A Maxon Company, LLC (AMC), Acuity Insurance Company asked the Supreme Court of South Dakota to determine a question of coverage under the terms of an insurance policy, which listed Greg and Tammy Weatherspoon as additional loss payees. At trial, the circuit court granted Acuity’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the Weatherspoons’ counterclaim based upon the court’s determination that the terms of the insurance policy prevented the Weatherspoons from recovering damages unless AMC successfully asserted a claim for coverage.
In Acuity, A Mutual Insurance Company v. A Maxon Company, LLC, and Greg And Tammy Weatherspoon, 2024 S.D. 53, No. 30463-a-MES, Supreme Court of South Dakota ...
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – September 15, 2024
Posted on September 16, 2024 by Barry Zalma
ZIFL Volume 28 Number 18
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gtg-zFF2, see the full 18 page pdf at https://lnkd.in/gTy3ziYk, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnxQxy4M and at https://lnkd.in/gNcrs22f and at https://zalma.com/blog.
See the full video at and at
Subscribe here: https://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/manage/optin?v=001Gb86hroKqEYVdo-PWnMUkcitKvwMc3HNWiyrn6jw8ERzpnmgU_oNjTrm1U1YGZ7_ay4AZ7_mCLQBKsXokYWFyD_Xo_zMFYUMovVTCgTAs7liC1eR4LsDBrk2zBNDMBPp7Bq0VeAA-SNvk6xgrgl8dNR0BjCMTm_gE7bAycDEHwRXFAoyVjSABkXPPaG2Jb3SEvkeZXRXPDs%3D
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 28th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to ...
Intentional Acts, Insurance Claims & Exclusions
Insurance Requires a Fortuitous Act
Available only to subscribers to Excellence in Claims Handling at Subscribe to “Excellence in Claims Handling” at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe for only $5 a month or $50 a year.
It includes the following: "In 1978, the California Supreme Court in Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co.71 dealt with a shooting that resulted in the death of the victim.
Regardless, it still led to a finding by the Supreme Court of California of a need for defense and indemnity. The court concluded that Hartford had no duties with regard to Dr. Lovelace’s intentional acts in the killing of Dr. Clemmer but was obligated to defend him. If there was a finding of nonintentional conduct in the shooting, however, it would be obligated to defend and its refusal to do so was wrongful."
Go to my Interview on the Art of Adjusting Podcast
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE
Insurance claims expert, consultant at Barry Zalma, Inc. and author/Publisher at ClaimSchool, Inc.
August 30, 2024
Posted on August 30, 2024 by Barry Zalma
See the video at:
In this episode, Chantal Roberts and William Auten welcome Barry Zalma, a seasoned insurance industry professional with over 56 years of experience. The trio discusses the changing role of insurance adjusters, their relationship with policyholders, and the current challenges faced by the industry.
Barry shares his journey from a military investigator to a trainee adjuster and recounts significant cases that shaped his career. Barry focuses on the critical importance of effective and fair claims handling for the profitability of insurance companies and the detrimental impact of poor handling practices. The team also grapple insurance fraud, the adversarial nature of the legal system, and the ...
False Swearing & Fraud in Claim Presentation Voids Policy
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gXTmBN9m, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gt8Qd6hB and at https://lnkd.in/gzuf8PWP, and at https://zalma.com/blog.
NEVER LIE TO YOUR INSURER ABOUT THE EXTENT OF DAMAGE
Post 4833
An insurance coverage dispute that arose from a pipe burst in the historic Pittsfield Building in downtown Chicago. On December 17, 2016, two pipes burst on the tenth floor of the Pittsfield Building, causing water damage to the first ten floors. After the loss event, the Pittsfield Entities filed a claim for the damage with their insurer, The Travelers Indemnity Company (“Travelers”) and could not agree on the extent of damage.
In Pittsfield Development LLC, et al. v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, No. 18CV06576, United States District Court, N.D. Illinois (July 3, 2024) the USDC resolved the action and Travelers’ claim of fraud in the claim presentation discovered during discovery in the plaintiffs’ breach of contract suit.
After initial motion ...
