Privette Protects Homeowner When Insurer Hires Contractor

Thursday, December 4, 2025 | 0

A California appeals court on Wednesday held that the Privette doctrine extends to a homeowner whose insurance company hired an independent contractor who was injured while inspecting a house for potential hazards.

Although Kathleen Wagner didn't directly hire Robert Andrews, the presumption that a person hiring an independent contractor has delegated control over all aspects of the work, including workplace safety, nonetheless applies because her insurer had effectively hired the inspector on her behalf, the 6th District Court of Appeal said.

"By paying her insurance carrier for insurance coverage, Wagner has in essence paid for the inspection," the court said. "And by consenting to allow Andrews to enter her property to carry out the contracted inspection, she has delegated to the independent contractor the responsibility for workplace safety. This falls squarely within the scope of Privette’s policy favoring delegation."

Wagner's insurer hired Property and Casualty Surveys Inc. to inspect her property. 

Andrews, an independent field inspector employed by PCSI, fell down backyard steps made from wooden railroad ties. 

He sued Wagner for negligence and premises liability, and his wife sued for loss of consortium. The cases were consolidated, and Wagner moved for summary judgment under the Privette doctrine.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wagner. The court was not persuaded by the argument that the steps represented a concealed hazard because a gardener said they are sometimes slippery when wet, or that Wagner could not avail herself of the Privette doctrine because she didn't directly hire PCSI.

The 6th District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court, saying, "For the purposes of analyzing Privette, there is no legal distinction between Wagner and her insurance carrier — both are 'hirers' within the meaning of the doctrine."

The appeals court differentiated the case from Ramirez v. PK I Plaza 580 SC LP, a 2022 decision in which the 1st District Court of Appeal found that a landlord-tenant relationship was not sufficient to invoke Privette. The court said the relationship between an insured and an insurer is broader in scope than the landlord-tenant relationship.

"Here, Wagner obtains the benefit of securing or maintaining her insurance coverage by permitting the independent contractor to enter her property and conduct the inspection as required by the homeowners' insurance carrier," the court said. "Given the policy favoring delegation of responsibility and assignment of liability, it would make little sense to allow liability to be imposed on the homeowner in such a situation."

The 6th DCA also said the concealed-hazard exception that the state's high court carved out in the 2005 decision in Ray Kinsman et al. v. Unocal Corp. was not applicable because there was no evidence of a concealed hazard. The Kinsman exception applies when a hirer fails to warn a contractor about a dangerous condition, and the contractor could not reasonably ascertain the risk.

Andrews admitted that the steps were in plain sight, and the court said it was his job to be conscientious about his work environment. Additionally, mere speculation that the stairs were wet or slippery is not sufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Testimony from Wagner's gardener that the steps were slippery at times does not establish that they were slippery on the day Andrews was injured. 

The court also said the testimony doesn't explain why Andrews, a trained home inspector who was tasked with identifying hazardous conditions, couldn't have identified the risk himself.

The court's decision in the consolidated cases of Robert Andrews v. Kurt A. Wagner and Paula Andrews v. Kurt A. Wagner, B332276, 12/03/2025, published, is here.