Clyde James Reynolds, Jr. was hired as an independent contractor sole-proprietor for Pro Plumbing, a subcontractor of McKenzie-Perry Homes, Inc., here the developer-general contractor. Reynolds was injured in one of McKenzie-Perry’s houses under construction when the second-floor stairs collapsed. As a condition of the contract with Pro Plumbing, Reynolds had deducted from his payment checks, as sole-proprietor/independent subcontractor, the cost of adding him to Pro Plumbing’s workers’ compensation coverage with The Travelers Insurance Company. Thus, Reynolds did not come under the exception of OCGA § 34-9-2.2. See Kaplan v. Pulte Home Corp. , 245 Ga. App. 286, 287 1 537 SE2d 727 2000. See generally Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Escuadra , 224 Ga. App. 894, 896 482 SE2d 505 1997; Subsequent Injury Trust Fund v. Lumley Drywall , 200 Ga. App. 703, 704-705 409 SE2d 254 1991. Travelers paid medical benefits and weekly wage benefits under Pro Plumbing’s workers’ compensation coverage on plaintiff’s claims. When Reynolds sued McKenzie-Perry, the trial court granted summary judgment to it as the statutory employer under OCGA § 34-9-8 a. Finding no error, we affirm. Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in finding that McKenzie-Perry was entitled to immunity as the statutory employer as the principal of Reynold’s subcontractor principal, Pro Plumbing. We do not agree. Normally, an independent contractor is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits from his principal. An exception to this rule is OCGA § 34-9-8 a .. . . This statutory employer provision, designed to ensure that employees in construction and other industries are covered by workers’ compensation, allows the subcontractor’s employees to seek benefits from their employer’s principal when the subcontractor defaults in his obligations to them. It also encourages the principal to require subcontractors to carry workers’ compensation insurance for the subcontractor’s employees. Citations and punctuation omitted. Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Escuadra , supra at 895. “A sole-proprietor subcontractor should not ordinarily be considered both employer and employee for purposes of OCGA § 34-9-8′s statutory employer provisions.” Id. at 896.
In pertinent part, OCGA § 34-9-11 a provides: the rights and the remedies granted to an employee by this chapter shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee at common law; provided, however, that no employee shall be deprived of any right to bring an action against any third-party tort-feasor, other than an employee of the same employer or any person who, pursuant to a contract or agreement with an employer, provides workers’ compensation benefits to an injured employee, notwithstanding the fact that no common-law master-servant relationship or contract of employment exists between the injured employee and the person providing the benefits. McKenzie-Perry does not come under any of the three express exceptions to an employee’s right to sue a third party. It was not an employee of the same employer; it was neither an insurer nor a person who provided workers’ compensation benefits under a contract with the employer; nor was it a ‘construction design professional.’ Warden v. Hoar Constr. Co. , 269 Ga. 715, 716 1 507 SE2d 428 1998. Thus, the only possible exception to tort liability for McKenzie-Perry must come as a statutory employer. Id. at 716. See also OCGA § 34-9-8. Punctuation omitted. Kaplan v. Pulte Home Corp. , supra at 287 1. For an independent contractor/sole-proprietor to be treated as providing his own workers’ compensation coverage, he must comply with OCGA § 34-9-2.2 by having his own workers’ compensation policy, by giving notice of the election, and by paying the extra premium for his own coverage as an employee. Id at 287; see also OCGA § 34-9-2.2; Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Escuadra , supra at 896; Subsequent Injury Trust Fund v. Lumley Drywall , supra at 705.
