South Carolina Indus. Commission v. Progressive Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 18092,18092 |
| Citation | 242 S.C. 547,131 S.E.2d 694 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SOUTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Respondent, v. PROGRESSIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
Joseph L. Nettles, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. David Aiken, Isadore E. Lourie, Columbia, Edward E. Saleeby, Hartsville, for respondent.
This appeal is from an Order of the Honorable John Grimball, dated May 17, 1962, affirming an Order of the Industrial Commission holding that Appellant, Progressive Life Insurance Co., is subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act.
On March 27, 1957, the South Carolina Industrial Commission ordered Progressive Life Insurance Company to show cause why it should not be required to conform to the provisions of the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held; and Appellant took the position that it was not subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act because it does not have 15 or more employees within the terms of the Act. Determination of this issue depends upon whether certain agents are to be termed employees. If such agents are to be classed as employees, then Progressive does have 15 or more employees and is subject to the provisions of the Act. The Single Commissioner, and the Full Commission upon review, found that Progressive does have more than 15 employees. Appeal was duly taken to the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County where the Honorable John Grimball, on May 17, 1962, affirmed the Order of the Commission; and Appellant, Progressive Life Insurance Company, now appeals to this Court, presenting the sole question of whether such agents are properly classed as employees or independent contractors.
The test in determining whether or not these agents are to be classed as employees or independent contractors and thereby exempt from the provisions of the Act is one of control. '[R]ight or power of control retained by the person for whom the work is being done is uniformly regarded as the essential criterion for determining whether the workman is an employee or an independent contractor.' DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304, 108 S.E.2d 114; and '* * * the principal factors showing right of control are: (1) direct evidence of right or exercise of control; (2) method of payment; (3) the furnishing of equipment, and (4) the right to fire.' 1 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law 44.00, p. 637.
These agents received a guaranteed minimum wage of $35.00 weekly, plus commissions on sales. They had a minimum quota which they were to meet by the end of each week. With the exception of their own automobiles, these agents were furnished supplies, which included all forms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Fedex Ground Package System Inc.
...with Lexington Floor Covering was solely within Lexington's control. Id.; see also South Carolina Indus. Comm'n v. Progressive Life Ins. Co., 242 S.C. 547, 131 S.E.2d 694, 695 (1963) (“The power to discharge or fire at will rested in the Company. The power to fire is the power to control. T......
-
Todd's Ice Cream, Inc. v. South Carolina Employment Sec. Com'n
...or exercise of control, (2) method of payment, (3) furnishing of equipment, and (4) right to fire. S.C. Industrial Commission v. Progressive Life Ins. Co., 242 S.C. 547, 131 S.E.2d 694 (1963); Chavis v. Watkins, 256 S.C. 30, 180 S.E.2d 648 The contract entered into by the parties must be co......
-
Felts v. Richland County
...of equipment, and (4) right to fire. Chavis v. Watkins, 256 S.C. 30, 180 S.E.2d 648 (1971); South Carolina Industrial Comm'n. v. Progressive Life Ins. Co., 242 S.C. 547, 131 S.E.2d 694 (1963); Todd's Ice Cream v. South Carolina Employment Security Comm'n, Our review of the record reflects t......
-
Hutson v. Herndon, 18132
...223 S.C. 421, 76 S.E.2d 301; DeBerry v. Coker Freight Lines, 234 S.C. 304, 108 S.E.2d 114, and South Carolina Industrial Commission v. Progressive Life Ins. Co., 242 S.C. 547, 131 S.E.2d 694. This Court has held that in determining whether the relationship of master and servant exists it is......