Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Contractor retaining control over way it performs work and submits itemized invoices for work is an independent contractor, not an employee, under Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and not subject to immunity under Tort Claims Act.

July 1, 2017
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. JPC Group, Inc., 157 A.3d 1 (Pa. Commw. Ct. March 9, 2017)

The City of Philadelphia retained JPC Group, Inc. to demolish a property that had sustained fire damage so that the Fire Marshal could investigate the fire’s origin. During the demolition, the building collapsed outward, causing damage to the insured’s property. The plaintiff, the insurance carrier for the property, commenced a subrogation action against JPC, asserting negligence claims. JPC argued that it was immune from liability pursuant to the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541, et seq. The trial court found that JPC was acting as an employee of the City when the accident occurred and was, therefore, immune from liability. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed this ruling, finding, as a matter of law, that JPC acted as an independent contractor, not an employee, on the day of the accident. Specifically, the Commonwealth Court found that the City retained JPC “[b]ecause it possessed ‘the equipment and the manpower and the experience’ to complete the work.” The fact that the Fire Marshal and other City employees oversaw the work for safety issues and provided direction was insufficient to render JPC an employee of the City. Instead, the Commonwealth Court found that JPC retained control over the manner in which it performed the work. Notably, the court noted that “exclusive control” was not necessary for a contractor to be deemed an independent contractor under the Tort Claims Act. The Commonwealth Court further found that JPC’s submittal of itemized bills to the City supported the existence of an “owner-independent contractor relationship,” not an employer-employee relationship. Thus, the case was remanded to the trial court for a new trial. 

 

Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2017

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2017 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Affiliated Attorney

Lauren A. Moser
Associate
(215) 575-2677
lzmoser@mdwcg.com

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."