Covarrubias v. Hansen
Filed 4/19/06 Covarrubias v. Hansen CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| LANCE COVARRUBIAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROBERT HANSEN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A110865 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 436263) |
Plaintiff Lance Covarrubias appeals from a judgment entered on a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants Robert and Donna Hansen. The main issue on appeal is whether Covarrubias may avail himself of a rebuttable presumption of negligence imposed against employers who are required to obtain workers' compensation coverage but fail to do so. Because the Hansens do not fall within the class of employers who must provide coverage, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Covarrubias was allegedly injured while working on a residential rental property in Burlingame owned by the Hansens. Covarrubias sued the Hansens and two roofing contractors, Brian Kefaliotis and Greg Pincombe. The suit alleged the Hansens had, through Pincombe, contracted with Kefaliotis to reroof their house; that the defendants failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance; and that Covarrubias was injured while working on the roof.
The Hansens moved for summary judgment on the ground that Covarrubias could not establish negligence against them under any theory, including those legally arising from a failure to procure workers' compensation insurance.[1] In support, they adduced evidence that in October 2003 they hired Kefaliotis to replace the roof. Kefaliotis in turn hired Covarrubias to work on the project.
The Hansens argued, inter alia, that they were under no obligation to procure workers' compensation coverage for Covarrubias because he was employed by Kefaliotis, not by them. In opposition, Covarrubias argued that both he and Kefaliotis qualified as the Hansens' employees under Labor Code section 2750.5[2] because Kefaliotis lacked the contractor's license required for the project. (See Neighbours v. Buzz Oates Enterprises (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 325, 330; Zellers v. Playa Pacifica, Ltd. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 129, 132-133.) As a consequence, Covarrubias maintained, the Hansens were required to provide him with workers' compensation benefits, and since they did not, Covarrubias was entitled to benefit from a statutory presumption that his injury was due to their negligence. The Hansens responded that, as owners of the residence, they were statutorily exempt from workers' compensation requirements and the presumption of negligence did not apply in this case.
The court agreed with the Hansens and after finding that Covarrubias was otherwise unable to establish they were negligent, granted summary judgment. Covarrubias timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standards
â€
