{"id":3475,"date":"2016-09-06T15:35:02","date_gmt":"2016-09-06T15:35:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gillespieinsuranceservices.com\/?p=3475"},"modified":"2025-04-17T12:49:27","modified_gmt":"2025-04-17T12:49:27","slug":"workers-comp-for-domestic-workers-in-california","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/finfrockweb.com\/gis\/business-insurance\/workers-comp-for-domestic-workers-in-california\/","title":{"rendered":"Workers Comp for Domestic Workers in California"},"content":{"rendered":"

Workers Compensation laws in California are pretty straight forward: if you have any employees \u2013 even just one \u2013 you have to have workers comp. \u00a0But sometimes things get confusing. \u00a0Yes, it\u2019s true. \u00a0Here\u2019s an example: what if you pay your neighbor\u2019s son to feed your dog while you\u2019re on vacation? \u00a0Aah, see? \u00a0It\u2019s not always clear cut, now is it?<\/h4>\n

<\/p>\n

As an insurance agent, my answer to you is this: \u201cYes, your neighbor\u2019s son is an employee and you must get a workers comp policy for him. \u00a0And I will gladly sell it to you. \u00a0Just call me at 1-800-CHEAPRATES.\u201d<\/p>\n

Just kidding.<\/p>\n

That was not my real response. \u00a0It was the response that I imagine people expect an insurance agent to say. \u00a0 Let\u2019s get into my real response.<\/p>\n

So the question about paying your neighbor\u2019s son to feed your dog, mow the lawn, or rake your leaves begs a legitimate question. \u00a0Do you have to get workers comp for that situation? \u00a0At first it might appear so: you\u2019re paying someone to do work and that might seem to make you an employer and him an employee. \u00a0But on the other hand, this is not for business purposes. \u00a0If you\u2019re an employer and he\u2019s an employee, by the same logic any time you compensate someone for any type of favor wouldn\u2019t you also then have to get a workers comp policy? \u00a0Where does it end? \u00a0I mean, if you have to get workers comp for your neighbor\u2019s son feeding your dog on vacation, why wouldn\u2019t you also have to get a workers comp policy for the time you paid your other neighbor for the time she took your son to the hospital after he broke his arm on the ropes course at\u00a0summer camp? \u00a0(You couldn\u2019t pick your son up because you were on that all-inclusive Baja cruise, lucky you, Mr. Vacation.)<\/p>\n

The truth is, I don\u2019t have a body of literature to point to\u00a0that clearly states that your neighbor\u2019s dog-feeding son or your other neighbor\u2019s injured-youth-transport service doesn\u2019t qualify as an employee, and I did quite a bit of Googling. \u00a0Nevertheless, I don\u2019t think that either situation has created an employer-employee relationship. \u00a0This is something that I believe to be true based on two facts: 1) I\u2019ve never had anyone call me\u00a0trying to place workers comp for this situation, \u00a0and 2) I\u2019ve never heard of a situation where someone was busted because they were supposed to have it but didn\u2019t. \u00a0I just don\u2019t think our legislators are trying to get us buy workers comp policies for when our nephews come over to the house and rake the leaves for $5.<\/p>\n

But let\u2019s tweak the situation above just a little. \u00a0Rather than a one-time thing, let\u2019s say it becomes a regular thing. \u00a0You weekly pay your neighbor\u2019s son to feed your dog, mow your lawn, and sweep your driveway. \u00a0Now what? \u00a0This is starting to look a little more like an employer-employee relationship, which indicates a potential necessity for workers comp.<\/p>\n

In this case, I\u2019m happy to be the bearer\u00a0of good news. \u00a0If you have a homeowners, condo owners, or renters policy, you have workers comp coverage. \u00a0How so? \u00a0Every one of the aforementioned policies in California comes with the HO 0090 endorsement, a two page addendum stating that you have coverage for injuries sustained by \u201cresidence employees\u201d up to $100,000. \u00a0 A \u201cresidence employee\u201d is someone that you have paid to do 1) maintenance work on your house or 2) household or domestic services. \u00a0AND: they have to have 1) performed at least 52 hours of work and 2) earned at least $100 from you in the last 90 days. \u00a0If they meet the criteria, they are considered a residence employee and eligible for coverage on your home\/condo\/renters policy.<\/p>\n

If you don\u2019t have a home\/condo\/renters policy, I don\u2019t have good news for you. \u00a0You have a need for workers comp but have no coverage.<\/p>\n

One final thought: you may be wondering how people who aren\u2019t considered a residence employee are covered if they injure themselves while one-time feeding your dog, mowing your lawn, or sweeping your driveway. \u00a0Great question! \u00a0If the injury sustained was because of your negligence, you would have coverage up to full policy limits on your home\/condo\/renters policy. \u00a0These people are covered the same way you would be covered if you came to my house and slipped and fell on my property. \u00a0You\u2019d simply be a third party, not an employee.<\/p>\n

So in review:<\/p>\n