The clause employers slip into every contract just failed its biggest test yet
A Washington appeals court just told a major homebuilder it cannot offload safety liability to its contractors through paperwork alone.
In a decision filed February 10, 2026, and ordered published on May 19, 2026, the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division II, affirmed a state safety citation against Pulte Homes of Washington over a fall protection violation at a Bainbridge Island townhome project.
The facts are straightforward. In 2021, Pulte was developing the 275 Degrees Project, a multifamily site of 24 luxury units across six buildings. It had hired contractor Surface Solutions to install waterproof coating on the decks. On April 22, an inspector from the state Department of Labor and Industries was walking around the outside of the site when he spotted a Surface Solutions worker, Armando Ramirez, working close to the edge of a deck 20 to 25 feet off the ground with no fall protection. Ramirez had been up there for about five hours. Surface Solutions also did not have a fall protection work plan posted on site.
The Department cited Pulte, not just Surface Solutions, and assessed a $6,000 penalty. Pulte appealed through the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, the Kitsap County Superior Court, and the Court of Appeals. It lost every round.
Pulte's defense is the one HR and safety leaders see all the time. Surface Solutions was an independent contractor. The master trade contractor agreement, the parties' governing contract, made the contractor solely responsible for the quality of its work, said Pulte assumed no responsibility or obligation for contractor employee safety, and required the contractor to comply with all applicable safety regulations.
The court was not persuaded. Under Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act case law, a jobsite owner owes a duty under the statute if it retained control over the manner in which an independent contractor completes its work. Two things showed Pulte met that test.
First, the contract itself required Surface Solutions to follow any project jobsite rules or regulations, including safety rules, that Pulte chose to put in place. The court said that clause, even if Pulte never invoked it, gave Pulte the contractual right to control how the work got done.
Second, Pulte's onsite conduct sealed it. Construction manager Nicholas Lavaring walked the site six to seven times a day, if not more. He told contractors where to go and what to do, ran brief safety meetings the parties called toolbox talks, and operated a four-step progressive discipline process that could end with a contractor being removed from the job. The court described Lavaring as acting as the face of Pulte on the site. Contract disclaimers, the court said, cannot defeat other evidence that shows retained control.
The court also found Pulte had constructive knowledge of the violation, meaning it should have known even if it did not actually know. Ramirez was visible from the sidewalk for around five hours. Lavaring himself testified that the inspector only needed to take a photo from the sidewalk to see that the worker was not wearing a harness. The violations were properly classified as serious because a fall from that height would likely result in permanent disability or death.
For HR, compliance, and safety leaders, the takeaway is blunt. Boilerplate disclaimer clauses will not protect a company from regulator action if its own people are running the site day to day. The right to control is enough. Actual interference is not required.
It also raises a real question about how contractor oversight programs are designed. Pulte's setup was unusually hands-on by the court's account, with daily walkthroughs, recurring safety meetings, and written discipline steps. That hands-on posture, paired with broad contract authority to impose any rules Pulte chose, is what the court used to find liability. Companies that want the operational benefits of close contractor supervision need to accept the legal responsibilities that come with it under state safety law.
The opinion's publication on May 19 means it now carries precedential weight in Washington. Developers, general contractors, and any business operating multi-employer worksites in the state should expect regulators to lean on it.
