Claimant filed Petitions against three alleged employers arising out of 4/5/24 work accident where he fell through a roof in a new construction project. It was uncontested that TS was claimant’s actual employer. TS did not have workers’ compensation insurance. TS was hired by NES. NES’ professional employer organization (“PEO”), Peoplease, claimed that while there was workers’ compensation insurance coverage through Chubb, an exclusion applied. NES was hired by the general contractor on the project, Albecon, who had workers’ compensation insurance. A Hearing was held to determine which alleged employer(s) would be the insurer(s) for the workers’ compensation claim. The Board confirmed that as TS was claimant’s actual employer, if it is found that Claimant sustained a work injury on 4/5/24, TS would be liable as an uninsured employer. As such, the provisions of 19 Del. C. 2311 are applicable to determine if NES and/or Albecon would be liable. It was undisputed that NES never collected a certificate of insurance from TS. Therefore, NES was deemed to insure the claim. However, NES’ workers’ compensation coverage was contested by Peoplease, who managed workers’ compensation services for NES. Peoplease and NES were named co-insureds on a workers’ compensation policy issued Chubb. This policy was clear that the terms could only be changed by endorsement issued by Chubb. Peoplease argued this policy did not apply, not because of any provision or endorsement in the Chubb contract, but due to a side agreement between Peoplease and NES. The Board found this side agreement was not enforceable as Chubb was not a party. Therefore, the Chubb policy covered NES for the alleged loss. Albecon was found to be protected by the “safe harbor” provisions of 19 Del. C. 2311 because consistent with NES’ valid workers’ compensation policy, Albecon obtained a facially valid certificate of insurance from NES for the time period in question. The Board noted that the certificate of insurance specifically listed the Delaware job site where claimant was injured, and as noted above, the certificate of insurance was in fact backed up by the valid Delaware Chubb policy. When the Department of Labor conducted a post-accident coverage investigation, their investigator determined that NES had coverage. Therefore, even if Albecon had investigated the certificate of insurance further, prior to the alleged accident, it would have learned that NES had coverage. Accordingly, Albecon was dismissed from the action. Should you have any questions regarding this Decision, please contact Greg Skolnik, or any other attorney in our Workers’ Compensation Department. Ronny Rondon v. Albecon, et al., IAB Hrg. Nos. 1546128, 1546238, 1546237 (Sept. 29, 2025).

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

Superior Court Upholds Board’s Overpayment Decision

On or about September 16, 2022, Claimant’s employer, Famous Dave’s Barbeque, permanently closed its Christiana, Delaware location where Claimant was employed. Claimant filed for unemployment benefits about one month later. As a part of the claims process, Claimant signed an agreement with the Delaware Unemployment Insurance Division that delineated her responsibility to pay back any benefits received if she were found later to be disqualified from benefits. On March 21, 2023, Claimant was deemed to be ineligible for benefits by a Claims Deputy and Claimant did not appeal that determination. On April 11, 2023, the Division informed Claimant that she received benefits that she was not entitled to, and that notice triggered a series of appeals, redeterminations, and subsequent investigations. That process culminated in a second redetermination issued on May 7, 2024 that the Claimant was overpaid $1,181.00 in benefits. A complicating factor was that the Claimant was also currently employed by a different employer during the claims period. As a result, the Division needed to analyze Claimant’s then current wages. As a result of the ongoing investigation, there was found to be a disparity between Claimant’s self-reported wages earned from the different employer and the wages reported to the Division directly by the different employer. Claimant filed an appeal of the May 7, 2024 redetermination, and the lower authority Appeals Referee upheld the redetermination. Claimant appealed higher to the Delaware Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, and the Board affirmed the Referee’s Decision. On or about August 15, 2024, Claimant filed an appeal of the Board Decision with the Delaware Superior Court. The Court ordered briefing on the case and ultimately affirmed the Board’s Decision on the basis that the Board’s Decision was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error. On appeal to the Superior Court, the Claimant also attacked the original disqualification from benefits issued on March 21, 2023. The Court held that it cannot consider those arguments because Claimant failed to appeal the disqualification determination. Ultimately the Superior Court held that the Board “correctly applied the recoupment statute” in its Decision. If you have any questions concerning this case please contact an attorney in our liability department. Lakisha Jones v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, C.A. No. N24A-08-002 PAW (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 20, 2025).

LITIGATION LAW UPDATE

Wrongful Death Case Dismissed in Delaware: Claimant had No Valid Claim under Washington Law

Plaintiff, Lori Ruff, is the mother of a deceased driver and brought this wrongful death suit in Delaware for a motor vehicle accident which occurred in Washington State. Suit was originally filed in Washington, but voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, as plaintiff did not have a claim under Washington law. She then filed suit in Delaware and Defendant responded with this Motion to Dismiss. The issue is whether Delaware or Washington law applies. “As the forum jurisdiction, Delaware’s choice-of-law rules are used to determine the applicable law on a particular issue in a specific case.” Pursuant to the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts §§ 6 and 145, when there is an actual conflict between the laws of two jurisdictions, the Court will consider which state has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties. Under Delaware law, a parent has an independent right to bring a wrongful death claim, whereas in Washington a parent may only bring such a claim if there is no surviving spouse, domestic partner or child. It is not disputed that the decedent had a surviving spouse and child. Because the two state laws would yield a different result for the case at hand, the Court here found the state laws to be in conflict. Furthermore, the Court determined that Washington has the most significant relationship to the claim, as the accident occurred in Washington and plaintiff lives in Washington. The Court found that defendant being incorporated in Delaware “carries little weight” here given that corporate governance is not in issue and neither Delaware, nor defendant’s actions in Delaware, had any relationship to the crash.

Because Plaintiff cannot state a claim under Washington Law, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted. Lori Ruff v. United Parcel Service, Inc., C.A. No. N25C-02-456 CLS, September 19, 2025