STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS V A-3 INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
STATE AUTO PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
UNPUBLISHED
May 22, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 279554
WCAC
LC No. 06-000106
A-3, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Hoekstra and Smolenski, JJ.
HOEKSTRA, J., (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
In this case, I would conclude that the WCAC majority erroneously applied MCL
418.161(1)(n) and the “substantial evidence” standard of review. Mudel v Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691; 614 NW2d 607 (2000). A review of the record evidence reveals
overwhelming evidentiary support for the conclusion that Leon maintained a separate business
within the meaning of § 161(1)(n). Leon voluntarily and intentionally entered into a Kirby
Independent Dealer Agreement with Cortese. Paragraph 5 of the agreement indicates that a
“Dealer is and at all times will operate as an independent merchant and is not subject to direction
and control by Distributor with respect to his/her selling activities.” Further, paragraph 6
identifies the relationship between Leon and defendant as “that of vendor and vendee and all
work and duties to be performed by Dealer shall be performed by him/her as an independent
contractor, and Dealer shall not be treated as an employee with respect to any services for
federal, state, [and] local taxes and workers’ compensation purposes.” Additionally, defendant
never withheld taxes or FICA, SACA, or FUTA from Leon’s commission checks. Defendant did
not supply Leon with a Form W-2 at the end of the year, but did supply a Form 1099. Leon files
his federal income tax as a self-employed person. He is free to hire individuals to work with
him, as long as he compensates those individuals himself. He is also free to advertise at his own
expense. Leon is free to sell competitor’s vacuum systems or other products without defendant’s
permission. He pays any fees associated with soliciting licenses required by municipalities.
Leon decides his hours of work and his sales territory. He leased a van from defendant, which he
could use for both work and personal uses. Finally, Leon takes defendant’s product on
consignment and sells the product door-to-door.
-1-
Under these circumstances, plaintiff cannot satisfy all of the requirements of § 161(1)(n)
and, thereby, demonstrate that Leon was an employee as defined by both that subsection and
MCL 418.161(1)(l). Hoste v Shanty Creek Mgt, Inc, 459 Mich 561, 570; 592 NW2d 360 (1999).
Consequently, the evidence established Leon’s status as independent contractor for purposes of
the WDCA.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.