Mills v. Merritt Builders, Inc.
This text of Mills v. Merritt Builders, Inc. (Mills v. Merritt Builders, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
2. An employee-employer relationship existed between the parties at all relevant times.
3. The accident that is the subject of this claim occurred on June 10, 2000.
4. The parties agreed at the hearing that the only issues presently before the undersigned are:
(a) Whether Risk Control Services, Inc. properly cancelled its workers' compensation insurance policy for Merritt Builders, Inc., on February 15, 2000?
(b) Whether Risk Control Services, Inc. has workers' compensation coverage for plaintiff's alleged injury of June 10, 2000?
5. The parties stipulated to the following documents that were received into evidence:
(a) A Pre-trial agreement, with a modification of the issues to be decided as stated above, was admitted as stipulated exhibit 1.
(b) The underwriting file of Risk Control Services, Inc. was admitted as stipulated exhibit 2.
2. In early February 2000, The Insurance Corporation of New York, through Risk Control Services, sent a "Notice of Cancellation" for non-payment of premiums by certified mail addressed to Merritt Builders and Kim Merritt. Nothing on the face of the envelope indicated that it contained a notice of cancellation. The envelope contains a post office stamp indicating that it was "unclaimed." Mrs. Merritt believed that her workers' compensation insurance coverage remained in effect since she and her brother had made a payment that she thought paid for the entire policy period subject to modifications based on payroll.
3. Neither Dean Jackson nor Beacon Insurance Group received a copy of the Notice of Cancellation or any other indication that the policy was to be cancelled.
4. Forest Bray, the sole shareholder of Bray, Inc., has been in the construction business for forty-four years. In early April 2000, Bray, Inc., started a remodeling job for a homeowner. In the latter part of May 2000, Bray, Inc. brought Merritt Builders to the job in order to furnish labor. At the time of the agreement between Bray, Inc. and Merritt Builders regarding the furnishing of labor, Merritt Builders had not provided Bray, Inc. with proof of workers' compensation coverage. After Merritt Builders employees had been on the job for a few days, Beacon Insurance Group faxed a certificate of workers' compensation insurance to Bray, Inc. Plaintiff's accident occurred shortly thereafter on June 10, 2000.
5. Dean Jackson and Beacon Insurance Group acted as an agent of The Insurance Corporation of New York and Risk Control Services when it provided said certificate of insurance. Merritt Builders and Bray Inc. relied on said certificate of insurance in deciding upon an arrangement in which Bray, Inc. would not add Merritt Builders' employees to its workers' compensation policy because coverage was already provided.
6. Risk Control Services relied on its agents to provide workers' compensation certificates of coverage on behalf of insured employers to general contractors. It is standard in the construction industry to rely on certificates of insurance provided by insurance agents.
2. "The scope of an agent's apparent authority is determined not by the agent's own representations, but by the manifestations of authority which the principal accords to him." Pipkin v. Thomas and Hill, Inc.,
3. "A party is estopped when he by his acts, representations, or admissions, or by his silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts." U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Country Club ofJohnston County, Inc.,
4. Because the undersigned finds that The Insurance Corporation of New York and Risk Control Services are estopped from denying coverage, it is not necessary to address whether the policy had been properly cancelled.
2. Defendants shall pay the costs.
S/_______________ CHRISTOPHER SCOTT COMMISSIONER
CONCURRING:
S/____________ BUCK LATTIMORE CHAIRMAN
S/______________________ LAURA KRANIFELD MAVRETIC COMMISSIONER
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Mills v. Merritt Builders, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-merritt-builders-inc-ncworkcompcom-2002.