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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Applicant for Insurance is Obligated to Advise Insurer in Material Changes After Application Was Signed
Post number 5371
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/physicians-malpractice-insurance-available-when-zalma-esq-cfe-fmpxc and https://zalma.com/blog.
Doctor Criminally Charged and License Suspended After Application Signed had Policy Rescinded for Failure to Advise Insurer of Change
In Xiang (Sean) Yuan, M.D. v. Positive Physicians Insurance Company, No. 1821 EDA 2025, No. J-A08033-26, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 29, 2026) Dr. Xiang (Sean) Yuan, a physician, sought renewal of his professional liability insurance policy with Positive Physicians Insurance Company (PPIC) in June 2020 and again in May 2021.
In the June 2020 renewal application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he knew of any circumstances that might lead to a professional liability claim.
Two days after signing the 2020 renewal application, Dr. Yuan was charged with 36 criminal offenses, and...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
