Boje v. D.W.I.T.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedJuly 17, 2007
DocketI.C. NO. 309779.
StatusPublished

This text of Boje v. D.W.I.T. (Boje v. D.W.I.T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boje v. D.W.I.T., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

*********** *Page 2
Upon review of the competent evidence of record with reference to the errors assigned, and finding no good grounds to receive further evidence or to rehear the parties or their representatives, the Full Commission upon reconsideration of the evidence reverses the Opinion and Award of the Deputy Commissioner.

***********
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as a matter of law the following which were entered into as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and this claim. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. An employer-employee relationship existed between the defendant-employer and the plaintiff at all relevant times herein.

***********
Based upon all of the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On February 21, 2003, former Deputy Commissioner Douglas E. Berger presided over a hearing on this claim. At the beginning of the hearing Deputy Commissioner Berger noted for the record that a representative of the general contractor, D.J. Griffith d/b/a Griffith Construction Company [hereinafter Griffith Construction] had appeared for hearing the day before and that he (Deputy Commissioner Berger) told the representative of Griffith Construction "that he did not have to come today, that it was not mandatory, that the only issue *Page 3 that would be resolved today (at this hearing) would be the liability of D.W.I.T., Inc. [hereinafter DWIT]." Therefore, Deputy Commissioner Berger did not address the issue of coverage as to the other defendants, who have since been added to this matter.

2. On June 26, 2003, Deputy Commissioner Berger filed an Opinion and Award which found as fact that plaintiff shattered his left heel on September 19, 2002, as a result of a fall while working for DWIT, that as a result of his fall plaintiff had been unable to earn any wages since September 19, 2002, that DWIT employed three or more employees on September 19, 2002, and that DWIT did not have workers' compensation coverage for its employees on September 19, 2002. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner Berger concluded as a matter of law that plaintiff had an average weekly wage of $230.00, and was entitled to have DWIT pay to him temporary total disability compensation in the amount of $153.34 per week beginning September 19, 2002 and continuing. Deputy Commissioner Berger ordered DWIT to pay future compensation at the rate of $153.34 per week to plaintiff beginning within 15 days of the filing of his Opinion and Award, but held in abeyance the payment for all accrued compensation owed. Deputy Commissioner Berger further reserved any claim for compensation plaintiff had against Griffith Construction and D.J. Griffith. Plaintiff has not received any payments pursuant to the award of Deputy Commissioner Berger since December 5, 2003.

3. DWIT did not appeal from Deputy Commissioner Berger's finding of fact and conclusion of law that it did not have workers' compensation insurance at the time of plaintiff's injury. The Full Commission finds no valid grounds to set aside this finding of fact and conclusion of law. *Page 4

4. On May 21, 2004, plaintiff filed a Motion to Show Cause due to DWIT's failure to pay weekly temporary total disability compensation in accordance with Deputy Commissioner Berger's June 26, 2003 Opinion and Award.

5. On July 9, 2004, Chief Deputy Commissioner Stephen T. Gheen entered an Order directing DWIT to appear before Deputy Commissioner George T. Glenn, II, to show cause why DWIT should not be held in civil contempt for its willful refusal to comply with Deputy Commissioner Berger's June 26, 2003 Opinion and Award. On July 30, 2004, the parties appeared before Deputy Commissioner Glenn on the Order to Appear and Show Cause.

6. DWIT raised for the first time at the show cause hearing before Deputy Commissioner Glenn that it had workers' compensation insurance on the date of Plaintiff's injury because its insurance policy with Builders' Mutual was not effectively cancelled.

7. DWIT purchased a policy of workers' compensation insurance for the period of May 10, 2001 through May 10, 2002, from Builders Mutual. DWIT chose to pay its monthly premium on the basis of self-reporting its payroll. The policy provided that workers' compensation premiums were due on or before the 20th of each month. DWIT failed to submit its payroll self report and premium payment for April 2002, by the due date. Builders Mutual sends out monthly interim late notices to those policyholders who do not pay their monthly premium on time. A notice was generated to DWIT on May 17, 2002, for the delinquent April 2002 payment, but DWIT still failed to submit its payroll self report or pay its April 2002 premium.

8. Ms. Wanda Prince of Builders Mutual prepared a "Policy Termination/ Cancellation/Reinstatement Notice" informing DWIT of the intent of Builders Mutual to cancel DWIT's workers' compensation policy effective June 23, 2002. The notice shows an issue date *Page 5 of June 5, 2002, with a cancellation effective date of June 23, 2002. This notice indicated that the reason for termination of insurance coverage was non-payment of premium and the missing payroll report for April 2002. The notice also indicated that to reinstate the policy, all monthly reports, premium payments and audits must be current.

9. On June 6, 2002, Builders Mutual sent the "Policy Termination/Cancellation/ Reinstatement Notice" to DWIT by certified mail. Ms. Prince prepared this certified mailing along with multiple other cancellations to be sent by certified mail through the post office. Builders Mutual also sent the cancellation notice to DWIT's insurance agent at Stanberry Insurance Agency, by first class mail.

10. Emil Milkey, III, and Emil Milkey, IV, were managing owners of DWIT, a limited liability company, now dissolved. DWIT received Builders Mutual's policy termination/cancellation/reinstatement notice when "Emil Milkey" signed the return receipt for the certified mail on June 14, 2002.

11. DWIT did not contact Builders Mutual to discuss or dispute the unpaid premium or the policy cancellation notice. The agent of Stanberry Insurance Agency did not contact Builders Mutual to discuss or dispute DWIT's unpaid premium or the cancellation.

12. On June 27, 2002, DWIT issued a check numbered 1190 for payment of April and May 2002 workers' compensation premiums under policy number 1000023598101, according to the notation on the check from Emil Milkey, IV. These policy premiums related to the policy year expiring May 10, 2002, but not the May 2002 through May 10, 2003 policy year. Builders Mutual received this check on July 2, 2002. Ms. Prince entered a computer note acknowledging receipt of the check. *Page 6

13. As a result of the receipt of check number 1190, Ms. Prince sent DWIT a letter on July 2, 2002. In that letter, Ms. Prince acknowledged receipt of the premium payment, but advised DWIT that in order to reinstate its policy, Builders Mutual needed $260.00 for the 2002 policy year renewal and a statement of no losses by July 9, 2002. DWIT took no action thereafter to renew its policy with Builders Mutual.

14. DWIT never submitted the $260.00 policy renewal premium or the statement of no losses.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 58-36-105
North Carolina § 58-36-105
§ 97-94
North Carolina § 97-94(d)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Boje v. D.W.I.T., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boje-v-dwit-ncworkcompcom-2007.