Skip to main content

Sonners, Inc. v. Department of Labor

Wash. Ct. App.June 30, 2000No. 24708-9-IICited 14 times
Defendant WinScott R. Sonners, Inc. dba Interwest Insulation$38,453.02 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bridgewater
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed the Department of Labor and Industries' assessment that Interwest Insulation, not the employee leasing company Barrett Business Services, was the employer responsible for paying industrial insurance premiums. Despite the leasing agreement's language, Interwest retained sufficient control over the workforce.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules on Who Must Pay Worker Insurance When Companies Use Staffing Agencies** This case involved a dispute over who was responsible for paying industrial insurance premiums for workers. Scott R. Sonners, Inc., doing business as Interwest Insulation, had hired workers through a staffing company called Barrett Business Services. When it came time to pay the required insurance premiums that protect workers who get injured on the job, both companies claimed the other one was responsible for the $38,453 bill. The Washington Court of Appeals ruled that Interwest Insulation, not the staffing company, had to pay the insurance premiums. Even though there was a contract saying Barrett was the official employer, the court found that Interwest still had enough control over how the workers did their jobs to be considered the real employer. This decision matters for workers because it helps ensure someone will actually pay for the insurance that protects them if they get hurt at work. When companies use staffing agencies or temp services, it can sometimes create confusion about who's responsible for worker protections. This ruling shows courts will look at who really controls the work, not just what contracts say, when determining which company must provide worker benefits and protections.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.