The Idaho Supreme Court ruled Thursday, October 22, 2026, that a subcontractor’s exclusive-remedy protection under Idaho’s workers’ compensation law depends on who actually controlled the work, not on what the subcontract called the parties. In Bauer v. Scott Myers and Sons Roofing and Construction, LLC (Docket No. 50888), a plumbing-company worker fell from a second-story balcony at an apartment complex after a temporary railing the roofing subcontractor had removed and reinstalled gave way. He sued the roofing company directly. The trial court dismissed the claim, reasoning that because both companies worked under the same general contractor, exclusive remedy barred the suit without separately applying the right-to-control test. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that independent contractors who injure another company’s workers are not automatically shielded just because a general contractor sits above both of them on the job (court listener; Business Insurance; WorkersCompensation.com).
Who it affects. Self-insured general contractors, owner-controlled and contractor-controlled insurance programs (OCIPs and CCIPs) on multi-trade Idaho construction projects, and the carriers and TPAs handling general liability files where a subcontractor is the named defendant. Idaho Code 72-209’s exclusive-remedy carve-outs did not change; what changed is how a court decides which companies the statute actually protects before it ever reaches that carve-out.
The reserve mechanism. Idaho Code 72-209 did not change language; the standard for applying it did. Claims examiners have routinely closed or zero-reserved subcontractor GL files where a subcontract labeled a party an independent contractor working alongside the insured’s employees on a shared job, treating the label itself as dispositive of exclusive remedy. That shortcut no longer holds. Bauer requires fact-finding on control before exclusive remedy applies, which means more of these suits survive a motion to dismiss and move into discovery. Even in cases where exclusive remedy is ultimately upheld on remand, the case reserve has to carry defense costs through that discovery phase instead of closing at the pleading stage, and a smaller share of previously “no exposure” files now carries open indemnity exposure because control, not contract language, turns out to run the other way.
What this means for your next review. Self-insured general contractors and OCIP/CCIP sponsors with Idaho exposure should pull the open and recently closed subcontractor GL files that were reserved at or near zero on an exclusive-remedy assumption and check whether the claims file actually documents right-to-control factors (who directed means and methods, who supplied equipment, who set the schedule) or just cites the subcontract’s label. Files that rely on the label alone should be reopened for a control-fact review before the next reserve study, with defense-cost reserves set to reflect a discovery track rather than an early dismissal. The pattern echoes the control-test shift in gig-economy misclassification disputes a decade ago, now landing in construction tort exposure instead of wage law, and it sits alongside Oregon’s Crandall ruling, where a different immunity doctrine opened a new contractor-liability claim path with no historical baseline. For broader fleet and construction-trade severity context, see the commercial auto and fleet IBNR guide and the public entity GL IBNR guide.
Sources
- Idaho Supreme Court opinion, Bauer v. Scott Myers and Sons Roofing and Construction, LLC, Docket No. 50888 (Oct. 22, 2026)
- Business Insurance: Idaho high court revives injured worker’s lawsuit against contractor
- WorkersCompensation.com: Idaho Top Court Finds Right to Control Test Applies
- Idaho Code Section 72-209, exclusive remedy statute