A California appeals court has affirmed Privette shield for insurer-ordered inspections, limiting homeowner exposure for contractor injuries.
On December 3, 2025, California’s Second Appellate District, Division Six, affirmed summary judgment for a homeowner in a published decision applying the Privette doctrine to an injury suffered by an employee of an independent home inspection company during an insurer-ordered visit.
Robert Andrews, an employee of Property and Casualty Surveys, Inc. (PCSI), inspected Kathleen Wagner’s home at her homeowners’ insurer’s request to help assess renewal rates and coverage levels. After finishing the interior, he stepped into the backyard and fell on wooden railroad-tie steps built into the ground. He acknowledged he knew the steps were present peripherally, was not watching where he stepped, and conceded he likely would not have fallen had he looked down. He speculated he may have slipped on water or moss but did not inspect the steps. He received workers’ compensation benefits. Andrews and his wife, Paula, sued Wagner for negligence and premises liability; Paula added a loss-of-consortium claim. Wagner died during the litigation, and her personal representative, Kurt A. Wagner, defended the case.
The Ventura County Superior Court granted summary judgment under Privette, which generally bars an employee of an independent contractor from recovering tort damages from the hirer for work-related injuries. On de novo review, the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court concluded Wagner satisfied her initial burden because, by paying for homeowners’ insurance and allowing the inspection, she effectively participated in the delegation of workplace safety to the independent contractor. For Privette purposes, the court found no legal distinction between the homeowner and the insurer that retained PCSI – both qualified as hirers within the chain of delegation. The panel distinguished Gordon v. ARC Manufacturing, Inc., which concerned primary assumption of risk rather than Privette, and Ramirez v. PK I Plaza 580 SC LP, which involved a property owner who did not hire the contractor. Having resolved Privette’s applicability and the “hirer” issue, the court then turned to the plaintiffs’ concealed‑hazard theory under Kinsman.
The court rejected application of Kinsman’s concealed-hazard exception. The steps were in plain view; Andrews admitted he likely would not have fallen had he looked down. Speculation that the steps were wet or mossy was insufficient. A gardener’s decade-old recollection that the stairs sometimes became slippery and that Wagner mentioned slipperiness did not establish a concealed, preexisting hazard on the day of the incident or one not reasonably ascertainable by a professional inspector. With the core claims resolved, Paula Andrews’ loss-of-consortium claim failed derivatively. The California Association of Realtors appeared as amicus curiae supporting affirmance. The opinion does not analyze specific insurance policy clauses; it addresses tort liability and delegation of workplace safety duties in insurer-directed residential inspections.
For carriers and managing general agents, the takeaway is operational. When independent contractors conduct underwriting or renewal inspections, responsibility for job-site safety remains with those contractors absent retained control or a concealed, known hazard. Maintaining clear vendor agreements and scopes of work and reinforcing safety expectations with inspection partners align with the decision’s reasoning. Underwriting and renewal teams can continue standard inspection practices while emphasizing contractor training and hazard awareness, and claims teams may view this as support for Privette defenses in residential inspection injury suits on similar facts. The ruling is certified for publication and precedential in California, clarifying liability allocation in insurer-ordered residential inspections.
