{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f38\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f43\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f44\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr{\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f46\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f47\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f48\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew){\*\falt Times New Roman};}
{\f49\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic){\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f50\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic{\*\falt Times New Roman};}{\f51\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese){\*\falt Times New Roman};}}
{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;
\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*
\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid14575461 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid14575461 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid397536\rsid5047846\rsid6910626\rsid9508377\rsid14575461\rsid16396558}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\author lroberto}
{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min3}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy13\hr10\min26}{\version5}{\edmins3}{\nofpages12}{\nofwords4905}{\nofchars27961}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws32801}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1350 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot6910626 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6910626 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6910626 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6910626 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid6910626 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1350\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid6910626\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 
Villalon  v. Hawaiian Rock Products, Inc., }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid6910626 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5047846 12}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  of 18
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5047846 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid6910626 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 EDWIN A. VILLALON, ROSALINA VILLALON and
\par PACIFIC INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par Plaintiffs-Appellants
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 vs.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 HAWAIIAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. and NATIONAL UNION
\par FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY of PITTSBURGH, PA.,}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Supreme Court Case No. CVA00-015
\par Superior Court Case No.CV0578-98}{\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 OPINION}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Filed:}{\b\insrsid5047846  }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 February 28, 2001}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid5047846  }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 2001 Guam 5}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on October 26, 2000
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5047846 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\ul\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Appearing for the Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 :
\par Seth Forman, Esq. 
\par Law Offices of Keogh and Forman
\par Ste. 105, C & A Prof. Bldg.
\par 251 Martyr St.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96932
\par \cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Appearing for the Defendants-Appellees}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 :
\par John B. Maher, Esq.
\par Michael D. Flynn, Jr., Esq.
\par McKEOWN VERNIER PRICE MAHER
\par Ste. 808, GCIC Bldg.
\par 414 W. Soledad Ave.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5047846 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt
\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 BEFORE: BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Chief Justice, PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Associate Justice, and JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice}{\insrsid5047846 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 SIGUENZA, J.:}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [1]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab The Plaintiffs herein, Edwin and Rosalina Villalon, appeal from a judgment of dismissal of their personal injury action after the Superior Court of Guam granted the Defendants}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Motion for Summary Judgment.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 We conclude that the lower court erred in finding that defendant, Hawaiian Rock Products, was the 
statutory employer of the Plaintiff and that, as a matter of law, their only remedies lay exclusively with the Guam Worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Act.}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 We therefore reverse and remand.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 I- BACKGROUND}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [2]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Hawaiian Rock Products, Inc. (hereinafter }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
) operates a ready-mix concrete, asphalt, and limestone crushing business at its leased premises. Reliable Equipment Corporation (hereinafter }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Reliable}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
) is in the business of leasing cranes and providing operators and other support for its heavy equipment. At all relevant times, Edwin Villalon (hereinafter }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Villalon}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid5047846 ) was an employee of Reli}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 able.}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [3]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Sometime in mid-September 1997, Hawaiian Rock was conducting repairs of one of its crushing plants.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
The repairs involved the replacement of frames and vibrating screens, and the re-attachment of a conveyor belt to the conveyor. Hawaiian Rock leased a crane from Reliable.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
It was to be used to move equipment and}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 material. Reliable provided the crane, an operator and Villalon, who was tasked to assist the crane operator. On September 30, 1997, while working at Hawaiian Rock
}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s leased premises, Villalon was injured when a rope broke and struck his arm.}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [4]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab On March 5, 1998, Villalon and his wife}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of Guam against Hawaiian Rock alleging liability in negligence for personal injuries sustained and for the loss of consortium. On November 13, 1998, Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company (hereinafter }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Pacific Indemnity}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 ) filed a Complaint in Intervention premised upon its status as the carrier of the worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s compensation insurance policy issued to Reliable and its consequent entitlement to reimbursement for worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation benefits paid to Villalon. On September 29, 1999, Villalon}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Complaint was amended to include National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (hereinafter }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 National Union}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
) as a named Defendant. National Union is the general liability insurance carrier for Hawaiian Rock.}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [5]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab On August 8, 1999, Hawaiian Rock filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss which was heard before the trial court on January 5, 2000.}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 In its Decision and Order of March 28, 2000, the court granted Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s motion to dismiss.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
The court held that, pursuant to Guam}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s Compensation Act, Hawaiian Rock was the statutory employer of Villalon and that his recovery was restricted to the remedies provided under that statute.}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [6]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab On May 12, 2000, Pacific Indemnity, Hawaiian Rock and National Union stipulated to the dismissal, without prejudice, of Pacific Indemnity}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s claim for reimbursement from Hawaiian Rock or National Union. Villalon timely filed his Notice of Appeal.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 II- JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [7]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Jurisdiction of this court is not in dispute and is found pursuant to Title 7 Guam Code Annotated sections 3107 and 3108(a) (1994). A grant of summary judgment is reviewed }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 de novo}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 . }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Guam v. Marfega Trading Co.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 1998 Guam 4, }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 ; Kim v. Hong}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 1997 Guam 11, }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  5;}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Iizuka Corp. v. Kawasho Int}{\i\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 l, Inc.}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 1997 Guam 10, }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  7. Summary judgment is proper }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 if the pleadings, depositions, answ
ers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact . . . .}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c) (1995). There is a genuine issue if there is }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 sufficient evidence}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 which establishes a factual dispute requiring resolution by a fact-finder.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Iizuka}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 1997 Guam 10 at }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  7. However, the dispute must be as to a }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 material fact.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 . }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}
}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 A }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 material}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  fact is one that is relevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might affect the outcome of the suit. . . Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a grant of summary judgment.}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid5047846  (citation omitted).}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [8]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab If the movant can demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-movant cannot merely rely on allegations contained in the complaint, but must
 produce at least some significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 . at }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 8. (citing }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986)). In addition, the court 
must view the evidence and draw inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant.}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Id. }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 (citation omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [9]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab The parties dispute the interpretation of particular}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 provisions of the Worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Act. Thus, this court reviews issues of statutory interpretation }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 de}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 novo}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 . }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 People v. Quichocho}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 1997 Guam 13, }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  3.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 III- DISCUSSION}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [10]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Chapter 9 of Title 22 of the Guam Code Annotated contains the provisions of Guam law with respect to Worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s Compensation.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9101 }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 et seq}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 . (1996).}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 It provides for the payment of compensation, i
n the case of death or disability of an employee, but only if the disability or death results from an injury sustained while engaged in industrial employment or public employment or both as defined in the statute.}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9104(a) (1996).}{
\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 The statute further provides that every employer shall be liable for and shall secure payment to his employees of the compensation payable under the Act. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  
9105 (a) (1996). Moreover, compensation is payable irrespective of fault as to the cause of the injury. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9105(b) (1996).}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 If the employer has obtained the coverage prescribed by the statute then
 the liability of the employer for compensation is exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Title 22 GCA }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9106 (1996).}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [11]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab The parties frame the issue around the characterization of Hawaiian Rock as the }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 statutory employer}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 of Villalon pursuant to statute. The particular provision provides, in relevant part:}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9103. Definitions}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 (j) }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Employer}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
. This term, unless otherwise stated, includes any body of persons, corporate or unincorporated, public or private, and the legal representative of a deceased employer. It includes the owner or lessee of
 premises, or other person who is in fact the proprietor, or operator of the business carried on there but who by reason of there being an independent contractor, or for any other reason, is not the direct employer of the workmen there employed. If the em
ployer is insured it includes his insurer as far as applicable.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9103(j) (1996).
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [12]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Hawaiian Rock contends that the plain language of the statute conclusively indicates that it is Villalon}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s employer. Essentially, the argument is that Hawaiian Rock was Villalon}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s statutory employer because Hawaiian Rock was the lessee of premises and was in fact the operator of the business carried on there but who, by reason of there being an independent contractor, was not the direct employer of}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Villalon. This is the same logic and approach the lower court took in deciding on the motion. The lower court held that general principles of statutory construction and Guam}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s prior case authority justified its conclusion that it was the legislative intent to include all }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 employers}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 irrespective of the purpose of the employment relationship. Villalon counters that under the various tests that courts generally apply to determine whether statutory employer status is conferred, the exclusive liability afforded by the Worker}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Act does not inure to Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s benefit.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
He argues that he was no more involved in the manufacture or production of rock products, Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s regular business, than when a farmer hires a contractor to construct a barn. Hawaiian Rock responds that the broad coverage and interpretation of the worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s compensation act given by the courts of Guam obviates the need to delve into the type of work done, the type of business involved and so forth. We, however, decline to view this jurisdiction}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s prior a}{\insrsid5047846 uthority as Hawaiian Rock does.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [13]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Section 9103(j)}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s definition of employer is the same as its precursor, Section 37002(j) of the Government Code. That provision was at issue in the case of }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Siguenza v. Guam Greyhound, Inc.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
, CV0779-83 (Super. Ct. Guam Sept. 30, 1986). There, Guam Greyhoun
d had contracted with Bundy for the repair and painting of portions of the interior of the building owned by Guam Greyhound. Bundy was to supply the labor and some of the equipment for the work. Bundy hired a foreman and four or five other workers, includ
ing the plaintiff. The plaintiff was on a scaffold supplied by Guam Greyhound approximately 30 feet above the ground. The scaffold tipped over and plaintiff suffered }{\insrsid5047846 serious injuries from the fall.}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [14]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab The court found that Guam Greyhound was the owner of 
the premises on which the accident took place, that it had operated its business as a race track on that property, and that by reason of an independent contractor it was not the plaintiff}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s direct employer. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Siguenza}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , CV0779-85 (Super. Ct. Guam}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Sept. 30, 1986) at}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
4. It reasoned that a plain reading of the statute indicated that Guam Greyhound was the statutory employer of the plaintiff. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [15]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab In reach
ing this result, the court declined to rely on Idaho case authority as controlling but rather viewed it as persuasive on the issue; however, it demonstrated that its interpretation was supported by the interpretation of the similar Idaho law. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 4-5. The court broadly compared the facts of}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Beedy v. Washington Water Power Co.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
, 238 F.2d 123 (9th Cir. 1956) with the facts before it and concluded that in both cases a plaintiff was employed by an independent contractor to provide repair and maintenance work on property owned by the defendant. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
Id.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 It further observed that under Idaho law, repair and maintenance work constituted part of the regular business of the property owner. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Thus, the }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Siguenza}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  court similarly concluded that the plaintiff was the statutory employee of the defendant. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [16]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab In the case of }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Friley v. Kalin}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
, CV0883-91 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 25, 1994), the plaintiff had been hired to perform services as a singer and dancer at a show at the Sandcastle, a Las Vegas style revue. She was injured when another entertainer}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s black leopard bit her leg. She subsequently brought suit against the Sandcastle, the leopard}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s owner, and various insurance companies. The issue was whether the plaintiff}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s remedy lay exclusively under the worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s compensation law or whether she could maintain the civil action against the defendants. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 3-4. The court determined that a plain reading of the worker}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation statute}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 indicated that the Guam Legislature intended it to reach beyond common l
aw direct employees and cover independent contractors as well. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 at 5. It noted that the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam had taken the same expansive view of the employer-employee relationship. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 5-6. (citing }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Shim v. Vert Constr. Co., et al}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , Civil Case No. 91-00019A (D. Guam App. Div. Nov. 18, 1988),}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Shin Hyon-Su v. Maeda Pacific Corp. et al}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , Civil Case No. 87-00063A (D. Guam, App. Div., June 8, 1988) and }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Mendiola v. Kyowa Shipping Co., Ltd.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , Civil Case No. 83-0001 (D. Guam App. Div.
, July 16, 1984)). The court then held that the fact that the plaintiff was an independent contractor made no difference in the outcome. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 6-7. It reasoned that the plaintiff was }
{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 under contract of service}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  to perform for the benefit of Sandcastle and that Sandcastle was the }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 operator of the business carried on there.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  (citing to Gov}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 t Code 37002(i) and (j), the definitions of }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 employee}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  and }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 employer}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , respectively). Thus, the Sandcastle was the statutory employer of the plaintiff. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [17]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab In another case involving the Sandcastle, a performer was performing when she slipped on water that had collected on the stage from a special effects prop and sust
ained injuries. She filed a complaint against the Sand Castle and its insurer claiming negligence.}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Frieze v. Sandcastle et al.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
, CV0139-94 (Super. Ct. Guam Aug. 1, 1994). One of the issues was whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief outside of the worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation law as an independent contractor. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 3. 
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [18]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab The court began by noting that the general rule, for purposes of worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s compensation, was that independent contractors are not included within the meaning of the term }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
employee absent any provision requiring such an inclusion. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  (citing 82 Am. Jur. 2d }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Worker}{\i\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  165 (1992)).}{
\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 It found, however, that certain provisions in Guam}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s law include independent contractors in the definition of }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 employee}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  for the purpose of worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
First, the court cited to section 37002(i) of the Government Code which defined an employee as }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
any person who has a entered into the employment of }{\ul\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 or works under contract for service}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  or apprenticeship with an employer}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  and}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 concluded
 that the code made even independent contractors statutory employees and limited recovery for injuries sustained on the job to worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  (emphasis in original). Additionally, the court found that the definition of employer includes }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 the owner or lessee of premises, or other person who is in fact the proprietor, or operator of the business carried on there but who, }{\ul\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 by reason of there being an independent contractor}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , or for any other reason, is not the direct employer of the workmen there employed.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 3-4 (citing to Guam Gov}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 t Code }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  37002(j))(emphasis in original)). Thus, it held that the law was clear and that worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation was the only available remedy to the plaintiff. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 4,7.
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [19]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Hawaiian Rock was previously involved in a case where it sought to impute statutory employer status upon another. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
Angelo v. Hawaiian Rock Products}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , CV0174-93 (Super. Ct. Guam}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
Apr. 29, 1994). In that case, Hawaiian Rock delivered to the work site ready-mixed cement for use by the contractor and subcontractor there for the construction of a storage building. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 1. Plaintiffs were employees of the subcontractor. While the cement was being poured, a boom attached to Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s truck struck the plaintiffs causing injury. Hawaiian Rock filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the plaintiffs}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  cause of action against it was barred pursuant
 to the Guam Workmen}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Act.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Hawaiian Rock argued that the general contractor was its and the Plaintiffs}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  statutory employer. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 2.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
Plaintiffs argued that Hawaiian Rock was merely delivering cement to a purchaser, the general contractor, and that the use of Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s pump truck and operator was necessary to accomplish the delivery and complete the sale for cement. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
The court framed the issue as whether the general contractor was the statutory employer of Hawaiian Rock and proceeded to examine Guam Government Code Section 37002(j). }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 4.}{
\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 The court noted:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Although a plain reading of the statute would indicate that the Guam legislator [sic] intended the word }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 employer}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  to be interpreted broadly, it is generally accepted that a contractor is not the statutory employer of employees of material suppliers who deliver materials to the work site. 1C A. Larson, The Law of Workmen}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation, }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 49.16(h) at 9-100 (1993).}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
The compensation act does not apply where the transaction between the immediate employer and the person sought to be held liable as his employer is that of purchase and sale, . . .}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  99 C.J.S. Workmen}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  107 (1958). }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
The rule stated is subject to the exception that when the contract to sell is accompanied by an undertaking by either party to render substantial services in connection with the goods sold, that party is a contractor within the meaning of the statute.}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Bendure v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Company}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 433 P. 2d 558, 564 (1967). 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  (internal quotations and citations in original).
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [20]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab The court held that Hawaiian Rock did not render substantial services in connection with
 the delivery of the cement and that it was not a statutory employee of the general contractor under the Guam Workmen}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Act. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 6. There was no contract, written or oral, delineating the relationship between Hawaiian Rock and the general contractor. However, Hawaiian Rock submitted a document labelled }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 equipment rental}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  to establish the existence of a statutory employer-employee relationship. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 5.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
It was contended that that document established that Hawaiian Rock was hired by the general contractor to pour concrete at the construction site and}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
that the general contractor was to be charged an hourly rate for the rental of the pump truck and the pump truck operator. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 Hawaiian Rock alleged that the case did not merely involve a delivery of cement but rather a more intricate process which was undertaken by Hawaiian Rock requiring it to render substantial services in the construction project. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\i\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 The court rejected Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s arguments and found that no contract existed to support Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s contention that its relationship with the general contractor was more than that of a purchaser and seller involving the delivery of the product. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Amo
ng the facts relied upon by the court was that it was undisputed that the subcontractor provided the labor on the project and the cement was poured into trenches with partial forms constructed by the plaintiffs and other employees of the subcontractor. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 5-6. The subcontractor}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s employees spread and levelled the cement after it was poured into the forms, and}{
\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Hawaiian Rock was not involved in the finishing of the concrete nor the removal of the forms after it had set. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
The fact that delivery required the use of a pump truck and seventy five foot boom did not warrant a finding of substantial services rendered when compared with the fact that Hawaiian Rock had only spent a total of three hours on the project which includ
ed travel time to and from the work site. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
Additionally, the heavy equipment and the experienced pump truck operator were necessary to facilitate the delivery of cement and that the sole responsibility of Hawaiian Rock was to deliver the cement and pour it where the foreman directed. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
The assessment of these facts led the court to conclude that Hawaiian Rock did not render substantial services in connection with the delivery to justify an inference that Hawaiian Rock was the statutory employee of the general contractor. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [21]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Consistent with earlier Guam cases as we have outlined them above, it has been held that }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 the statutory definition of employer is an expanded definition }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 designed to prevent an employer from avoiding liability under the workmen}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s compensation statutes by subcontracting the work to others who may be irresponsible and not insure their employees.}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Harpole v. State}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 958 P. 2d 594, 597 (Idaho 1998) (citations omitted). That is, it }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 creates a statutory relationship of employer and employee, where no such relationship existed at common law.}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 King v. Snide}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
, 479 A. 2d 752, 754 (Vt. 1984). But it has generally been held that in order to find a person a statutory employer, the work being carried out by the independent contractor on the owner}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s or proprietor}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s premises must be of the type that could have been carried out by employees of the owner or proprietor in the course of his usual trade or business. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 754-755 (citing 1C A. Larson, Workmen}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Law }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  49:12). Thus, an important inquiry is:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
Whether the work contracted for by the owner or proprietor with the independent contractor is a part of, or process in, the trade, business or occupation of the owner or proprietor must be decided on a case by case basis. Due co
nsideration must be given to the customary practice of the owner or proprietor in carrying on his usual business and to the terms of the contract between the employee and the independent contractor.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  (citing to 99 C.J.S. Workmen}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  109b(1)).
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [22]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab We recognize that prior Guam decisions may have tended to indicate that the status of an injured person as an independent contractor is irrelevant in the context of Guam}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation law. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See e.g.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Friley}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , CV0883-91 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 25, 1994); }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Frieze}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , CV0139-94 (Super. Ct. Guam Aug. 1, 1994).}{
\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 But to read these cases and to construe the statute as such would be to ignore the purposes and intent of worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensati
on and the circumstances of its appropriate application.
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [23]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Both of the cases above relied on the statutory definition of }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 employee}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  as provided in Guam Government Code }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  37002(i).}{\cs15\super\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6910626 \chftn }{\insrsid6910626  }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 That section provides:}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 
(i) Employee. This term, as used herein, is synonymous with worker, and means any person who has entered into the employment of or works under contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer. It includes aquacultural and agricultural workers but ex
c
ludes a person whose employment is purely casual and not, for the purpose of the employer's trade or business. As used herein the term employee includes any person who has worked forty (40) hours per week during the previous sixty (60) days, exclusive of 
holidays, for the same employer. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 Guam Gov}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 t Code }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}
}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  37002(i) now codified as Title 22 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  9103(i)(1996) (As amended by P.L. 16-1:2, eff. Feb. 10, 1981).
}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Specifically, the language that provides that }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
any person who has entered into the employment of or works }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 under contract of service}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  or apprenticeship with an employer.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Se}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 e }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Friley}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 ,
 CV0883-91 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 25, 1994) at 6; }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Frieze}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , CV0139-94 (Super. Ct. Guam Aug. 1, 1994) at 3. However, within the statutory}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 definition of employee there is a significant}{\insrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 caveat}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  that the term }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 employee}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 excludes a person whose employment is }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 purely casual, and not for the purposes of the employer}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s trade or business . . . .}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  22 GCA }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 9103(i). A plain reading of that provision is that a person who may be under contract for services is an employee }{\b\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 except}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  if his employment is casual }{
\b\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 and}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  not for the for the purpose of the employer}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid5047846 s trade or business.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [24]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab To construe and apply}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 the statutory employer definition contained in 22 GCA }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9103(j) irrespective of the purpose of the employment would be to render meaningless other provisions of the worker}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s compensation statute. We agree with the trial court that it is a principle of statutory construction to look first at the plain language of the statute; but it is also fundamental that a construction resulting in an absurd and 
unjust result and would clearly be inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the act in question should be avoided. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\ul\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Sutherland Stat. Const}
{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 . }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  45.12 (5}{\super\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 th}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  ed.). Here, the statute specifically provides that coverage of the act is limited to the injury or death of an employee that results from injuries sustained }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 while engaged in}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  industrial employment or public employment or both as defined in }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9103".}{\insrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Title 22 GCA }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  9104(a) (1996) (emphasis added). Industrial employment is defined as including }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 employment in a trade, occupation or profession }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 which is carried on}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  by the employer for the sake of pecuniary gain.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Title 22 GCA }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 9103(l) (1996) (emphasis added). Thus, while we agree that the definition of employer is broad we do not see it as so broad as to allow any independent contractor or any person who is in no way involved with the employer}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '
}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s trade, business or occupation the ability to claim against that employer}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s compensation insurance.}{\cs15\super\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6910626 
\chftn }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 Illustrative of the absurdity of Hawaiian Rock}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 
s view of the statute was a hypothetical discussed at oral argument.  The court presented counsel with the hypothetical of the IBM technician who comes to repair a computer in a law office, given the re
liance of such instruments in the modern law office, that person is injured - can the injured person claim coverage by worker}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 s compensation?  Following Hawaiian Rock}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{
\fs20\insrsid6910626 s logic the answer would be yes.  The same answer results when the injured person is a process server or other individual who happens to be injured on the premises.}}}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [25]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Our conclusion that coverage under the statute is dependent upon the determination that the injured person is engaged in wo
rk that is related to the business of the alleged employer finds}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 support in the fact that the government}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
agency tasked with the administration of the worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation law conducts such an inquiry to determine whether an injured person is entitled to coverage. The Worker}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Commission has utilized the }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Relative Nature of Work Test}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 to determine whether or not an employee-employer relationship exists}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 between the parties in a worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation claim.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6910626 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 
This court has collaterally addressed the statutory employer doctrine  in the case of }{\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 Bondoc v. Worker}{\i\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 s Compensation Comm}{\i\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 n}{
\fs20\insrsid6910626 , 2000 Guam 6. In that case, an injured employee sought review of the Worker}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 s Compensation Commission}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 
s determination that he was ineligible for the benefits under the Worker}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 s Compensation Act. The court was faced with inconsistent conclusions that the Commission had generated while applying the  }{
\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 Relative Nature of the Work Test}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  to determine whether Bondoc was entitled to worker}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 
s compensation coverage. The court took no position as to the appropriateness of the test but instead sought to demonstrate the inconsistent  manner in which it was applied.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 Bondoc}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 , 2000 Guam 6, at }{
\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  12, n.6. However, it has been stated that, in the context of worker}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 
s compensation statutes, courts have given substantial weight to the interpretation of an expert administrative agency. }{\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 See}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  }{\fs20\ul\insrsid6910626 Sutherland Stat. Const.}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  }{
\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  73.02 (5}{\fs20\super\insrsid6910626 th}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  ed.). Although a court generally observes this rule
 of deference, it need not defer to the agency}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 s interpretation when the meaning of the statute is clear and unambiguous. }{\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 Id.}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  }}}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 That test is described as follows:}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 This test, then, which for brevity will be called the }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 relative nature of the work}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  test, contains these ingredients: the character of the claimant}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s work or business}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 how skilled it is, how much of a separate calling or enterprise it is, to what extent it may be expected to carry its own accident burden and so on}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 and its relation to the employer}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s business, that is, how much it is a regular part of the employer}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s regular wor
k, whether it is continuous or intermittent, and whether the duration is sufficient to amount to the hiring of continuing services as distinguished from contracting for the completion of a particular job. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Burns v. Nyberg}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 697 P.2d 1165, 1170 (Idaho 1985)(Bistline, dissenting)(citing to Larson, Workmen}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Law, 
}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  43.52). The test is usually used to distinguish employees from independent contractors. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See Lowe v. Zarghami}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 731 A. 2d 14, 19-20 (N.J.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 1999).}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
It is used primarily in worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation cases but has been found useful in other contexts. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 at 20. (citations omitted).}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [26]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Further, our holding is also consistent with that of other jurisdictions in determining under what circumstances coverage by their respective worker}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation statutes is applied.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 The Supreme Court of Idaho}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
articulates the inquiry of whether one is a statutory employer as: }{\cs15\super\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6910626 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 The Guam statute provides it is the }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 owner or lessee of premises, or other person who is }{\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 in fact}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  the proprietor, or operator of the business carried on there. . .}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  }{\i\fs20\insrsid6910626 See}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  22 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid6910626  9103(j) (emphasis added).  }}}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 The true test is, did the work being done pertain to the business, trade, or occupation of the [defendant] carried on by it for pe
cuniary gain? If so, the fact that it was being done through the medium of an independent contractor would not relieve the defendant from liability.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Harpole}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 958 P. 2d at}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 597. In addition, Vermont is a jurisdiction with a statutory definition of employee similar to our own.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid6910626 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 
The statute provides:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 (14) }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 Worker}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626  and }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 Employee}{
\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 
 means a person who has entered into the employment of, or works under contract of service or apprenticeship with, an employer, but shall not include:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 (A) a person whose employment is of a casual nature, and not for the purpose of the employer}{\fs20\insrsid397536 '}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 s trade or business. . .

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid6910626 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs16\insrsid6910626 VT. STAT. ANN}{\fs20\insrsid6910626 . Title 21,  }{\fs20\insrsid6910626 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f38\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid6910626  601(14)(A) (1999) (quotations in original).}}}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 The Supreme Court of Vermont interpreted}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
an earlier version of this provision which contained the disjunctive }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 or}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  rather than the conjunctive }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 and}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 in its present manifestation.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Chamberlain v. Central Vermont Ry. Co.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , 137 A. 326, 328 (Vt. 1927). In that case, the court addressed the issue of }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 purely casual employment}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f38\fs24}}}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  and quoted its approval of the rule:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
While each case must be largely decided upon its own facts, we believe the Legislature intended that where one is employed to do a particular kind of work, which employment recurs with regularity, and where there is a reasonable ground that such
 recurrence will continue for a reasonable period of time, such employment is not casual.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
On the other hand, where the employment for one job cannot be characterized as permanent or periodically regular but occurs by chance, or with the intention and unde
rstanding on the part of both employer and employee that it shall not be continuous, it is casual.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Id.}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  at 329. Finally, the distinction between an employee and independent contractor is determinative as to whether an injured person is entitled to compensation under the act. }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See eg., Burns v. Nyberg}{\insrsid5047846 , 697 P. 2d 1165 (Idaho 1985).}{\insrsid6910626 
\par }{\insrsid5047846\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [27]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab There is no inconsistency with what we hold today and the prior Guam authorities outlined above. It is obvious that in the previous Guam court cases, there was
 the determination that the injured person was employed for the purpose of the employer}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s trade or business.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Frieze}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , CV0139-94 (Super. Ct. Guam Aug. 1, 1994) (wherein the plaintiff was an independent contractor entertainer and defendant is engaged in 
the business of entertainment); }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 and}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Friley}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , CV0883-91 (Super. Ct. Guam Jan. 25, 1994) (same).}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Similarly, in }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Siguenza}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
, CV0779-85 (Super. Ct. Guam Sept. 30, 1986), the court determined that the repair and maintenance work performed there constituted part of the regular business of the property owner. In the case denying coverage by the worker}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s compensation statute, the court determined that the facts did not show that the defendant engaged in some substantial services in the construction business of the all
eged statutory employer. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Angelo}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 , CV0174-93 (Super. Ct. Guam Apr. 29, 1994).}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [28]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab In other words, the respective courts in the Guam cases above concluded that}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 the plain language of Gov}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 t. Code section 37002(j) justified the results, that is, }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 if}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  defendant was the owner of premises }{
\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 and}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  if defendant was in fact the operator of the business carried on, }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 and}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 but for the presence of the independent contractor then defendant would be the direct employer of injured party then defendant is the statutory employe
r. The inquiry of whether the work contracted for by the owner or proprietor with the independent contractor is a part of, or process in, the trade, business or occupation of the owner or proprietor was implied. This is especially true when the facts supp
orting this conclusion were fairly obvious in those cases.
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [29]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab 
In summary, it is not merely for the fact of the presence of an independent contractor, or that the employer is carrying on a business on the premises, which determines whether worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s compensation coverage is warranted. There must be a consideration of}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 the essence of the injured person}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s work at the time of injury that indicates that he was engaged in the trade, occupation or business of the employer.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Therefore, we hold that}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
for an injured 
person to recover compensation under the act or for an employer, statutory or direct, to benefit from the exclusivity of liability it provides, the injured person must have been engaged in or carrying on the trade or business of the ostensible employer.

\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [30]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab 
In this case, Reliable rented a crane to Hawaiian Rock. The record discloses that Hawaiian Rock often utilized cranes supplied by Reliable; however, it appears that the cranes were always rented to assist in repair work. In the contex
t of the relevant time, no contract existed between Reliable and Hawaiian Rock delineating the equipment or services involved; however, it is clear that Hawaiian Rock would rent the crane at the rate of $75.00 per hour and that two of Reliable}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s employees were assigned to operate the crane.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 At the time of Villalon}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s injuries, the crane was to be used to lift equipment and materials so that repairs to a crushing plant could be effected. It is not disputed that Villalon was not directly engaged in the produc
tion of concrete or asphalt nor in the limestone crushing activities of Hawaiian Rock.
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [31]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab And while there are circumstances where repair and maintenance work may constitute part of}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 regular course of Hawaiian rock}{
\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s business; there is nothing in the record which we can perceive as indicating that}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Villalon}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s employment, at the time of injuries, was anything that can be characterized as the repair of Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s crushing plant. Villalon and the crane operator were only utilized to move equipment or materials from one place to another. Reliable}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s employees would only be moving the equipment and material according to where Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s employees would tell them to. Neither of Reliable}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s employees were involved in the actual repair of the crushing plant, specifically, the replacement of the conveyor belt. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 Excerpts of Record at 79 (Deposition of Anthony Quidachay).
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [32]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab The record shows that Reliable was one of a few other companies from which Hawaiian Rock would rent cranes. }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Excerpts of Record at 77 (Deposition of Anthony Quidachay). Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s utilization of cranes in the course of its regular business occurred frequently; however, the need for the use of the cranes in the type of repairs involved here occurred less frequently, about once every three years.}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 See}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  Excerpts of Record at 76 (Deposition of Edgar Rosero). The record indicates that Villalon}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
s employment at the Hawaiian Rock work site and the duties he was to discharge}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 while there was not a permanent or periodically regular occurrence.
\par }{\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [33]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab Therefore, we conclude that Villalon was not engaged in activity that could be fairly characterized as a part of Hawaiian Rock}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s trade or business at the time of his injuries.}{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Consequently, he is not restricted to the remedies provided by the Worker}{\insrsid397536\charrsid5047846 '}{
\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 s Compensation Act.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 IV- CONCLUSION}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\b\insrsid5047846 
\par }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 [34]}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 \tab After our }{\i\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 de novo}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 
 review of the summary judgment granted in this case, we conclude that the work done by Villalon, at the time of h
is injuries, was not a part of or process in the trade, business or occupation of Hawaiian Rock. Thus, the trial court erred in finding that Hawaiian Rock was the statutory employer of Villalon. We therefore,}{\insrsid5047846  }{
\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 REVERSE}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  and }{\b\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 REMAND}{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846  the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.}{\insrsid5047846 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR.\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 JOHN A. MANGLONA
\par Associate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5047846  }{\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 Designated Justice}{\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid5047846 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5047846 {\insrsid6910626\charrsid5047846 BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ
\par Chief Justice
\par }}