## Facts

- A public authority hired Wright Associates, Inc. as the principal contractor to construct an academic building at a junior college.
- Wright subcontracted certain on-site work to Eastern Steel Erectors, Inc., an independent subcontractor.
- Thomas Rieder, an Eastern employee, was injured in an on-site work accident.
- Rieder received workers’ compensation benefits through Eastern.
- Rieder sued Wright in tort, alleging negligence by a Wright employee caused the injury.
- Wright did not initially plead workers’ compensation exclusivity; nearly two years after answering, Wright moved for summary judgment asserting statutory-employer immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether a principal contractor qualifies as a statutory employer under former Code Ann. § 114-112, making workers’ compensation the exclusive remedy and barring a subcontractor-employee’s tort suit for an on-site injury.
2. Whether the principal contractor waived the workers’ compensation exclusivity defense by not raising it in the initial pleadings and asserting it later via summary judgment, and whether amendment should be permitted.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia held Wright was a statutory employer under former Code Ann. § 114-112 because the injury occurred on the premises where Wright undertook the work.
- The court held the exclusive-remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act barred Rieder’s negligence action against Wright.
- The court held Wright did not waive the exclusivity defense merely by raising it late and should be allowed to amend its answer to assert it.
- The court reversed the denial of summary judgment and directed entry of summary judgment for Wright.

## Legal Principles

- Under former Code Ann. § 114-112, a principal contractor may be liable for workers’ compensation to employees of subcontractors injured on, in, or about premises where the principal contractor undertook to execute the work (or otherwise controlled or managed).
- When a principal contractor is potentially liable for workers’ compensation as a statutory employer, it receives the same tort immunity provided by the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision (former Code Ann. § 114-103).
- A subcontractor’s employee who receives workers’ compensation for an on-site injury generally cannot maintain a tort action against a statutory-employer principal contractor for the same injury.
- The workers’ compensation exclusivity defense may be raised by amendment absent a showing of irremediable prejudice; delay alone does not establish waiver.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the principal contractor qualified as a statutory employer and was therefore immune from the subcontractor-employee’s tort claim under workers’ compensation exclusivity, and it allowed the defense to be asserted by amendment despite being raised late, requiring summary judgment for the contractor.


Wright Assocs., Inc. v. Rieder, 247 Ga. 496, 277 S.E.2d 41 (1981)