The Plaintiff Rodriguez was employed to perform labor for Defendant Romero, who was a subcontractor. During the installation of a new roof (June 27, 2000), Rodriguez fell through a skylight opening, suffering serious 
injuries. What is undisputed is the fact that Mr. Rodriguez is entitled to workers compensation.
However, the question still exists as to what insurance carrier is responsible. The subcontractor, in this case, had purchased insurance, but it was cancelled for non-payment. Another policy, with INSCORP, was issued on June 22, 2000 with an effective date to May 19, 2000. However, in the meantime, the company obtained an assigned risk insurer (ARI) policy under S.C. Code Ann. 38-73-540 from appellee, Capital City Ins Co., effective June 24, 2000.
Capital City was not apprised of the information that INSCORP had provided voluntary coverage, but nevertheless ruled that Capital City was responsible due to a most recent effective date of June 24, 2000. The circuit court reversed and found INSCORP was the responsible carrier.
On appeal, the court held that since Capital City’s policy was never effective, the dual coverage provisions of 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-409 were not applicable. That left INSCORP as the solely responsible carrier on the claim.
If you have been injured in a work accident, it is important to ensure who the carrier, who will pay your claim, who is responsible. This is something that could potentially cause some dispute (in this case, the dispute), and can cost unnecessary money if not taken care of properly. If you or a loved one has been involved in a workers compensation claim, contact the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower at 803-548-4444, for a confidential consultation.