Pennsylvania Construction Accident Settlement Calculator
Estimate compensation under Pennsylvania's Statutory Employer Doctrine — GC immunity under the McDonald 5-prong test, with full tort exposure when any element fails ($15.5M Feldman 2024)
Last reviewed: April 2026
⚖ PENNSYLVANIA STATUTORY EMPLOYER: GC either immune (full WC protection) or fully liable (no immunity). McDonald 5-prong test determines which. Feldman $15.5M (2024) showed the doctrine's limits.
Your Injury
Your Estimated Settlement
$36,000 — $66,000
Workers' Compensation Claim Data
Based on 5,586,588 real payments totaling $139.7B from official New York State workers' comp claims.
Average
$25K
Median
$20K
25th %ile
$13K
90th %ile
$44K
Source: NY Workers' Compensation Board. Actual payouts may vary based on individual circumstances.
Editorially Reviewed — Content reviewed for accuracy using published legal research, government data, and verified court records. See our methodology
Reviewed by Leonard Goldberg, Editor · Last updated
Pennsylvania's Statutory Employer Doctrine — A Binary Outcome
Pennsylvania's distinctive feature is the Statutory Employer Doctrine under 77 P.S. §521. When a general contractor subcontracts part of a construction project, the GC becomes the 'statutory employer' of the subcontractor's employees — gaining secondary workers' compensation liability AND immunity from civil negligence suit by those workers. But this immunity is NOT automatic: it requires meeting all five prongs of the McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co. test (153 A.2d 424, Pa. 1930). If ANY element fails, the GC has no immunity and faces full tort exposure.
The Feldman v. CP Acquisitions 25, L.P. case (501 EDA 2023, Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2024) shows the doctrine's limits. A worker suffered 62% body burns from a crane-to-power-line electrical arc during tree removal work. The Superior Court denied statutory employer immunity and upheld a $15.5 million jury verdict because (1) the trees were not 'timber' under the statutory definition, and (2) the GC lacked a direct contract with the actual property owner (SEPTA). Two elements failed — the GC faced full civil exposure.
For plaintiffs, this creates a litigation-within-litigation structure: before reaching the merits, you often fight a summary judgment motion over whether statutory employer immunity applies. Your attorney must build a record challenging each McDonald prong — contract scope, control, work type, and timing. Courts apply the test strictly, which favors plaintiffs who can identify even one weak link.
Pennsylvania Construction Law — Key Statutes
Pennsylvania has no Scaffold Law equivalent. Your claims rest on the Workers' Compensation Act + common-law negligence + the statutory employer doctrine:
77 P.S. §§ 1 et seq. (Workers' Compensation Act)
Primary recovery mechanism for employees
77 P.S. §521 (Statutory Employer Doctrine)
Standard: GC secondary WC liability + immunity from civil suit IF McDonald test met
42 Pa. C.S. §5524
2-year personal injury SOL
The McDonald 5-Prong Test — When Immunity Fails
Under McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 153 A.2d 424 (Pa. 1930), statutory employer immunity requires ALL FIVE elements: (1) the employer (GC) was under contract with an owner or one in a position of owner; (2) the premises were occupied or under control of the employer; (3) a subcontract was made; (4) part of the employer's regular business was entrusted to the subcontractor; (5) an employee of the subcontractor was injured. If any one element fails, the GC has NO immunity — full civil exposure. Feldman (2024) killed elements 1 and 4 (no valid owner contract, trees not 'timber' within the GC's regular business). Your attorney will attack each prong in discovery: contract production, business classification records, owner-entity structure. Pennsylvania does NOT apply Restatement §427 peculiar-risk doctrine robustly (unlike California). The primary alternative theory is retained control under §414 — similar to Illinois post-Carney.
Pennsylvania Workers' Compensation + Third-Party Exposure
Pennsylvania workers' comp (77 P.S. §§1 et seq.) is exclusive against the direct employer. No intentional tort exception in the same form as other states — the standards for piercing WC immunity through intent are stringent. General PI SOL: 2 years from injury under 42 Pa. C.S. §5524. Commonwealth claims capped at $250,000/person; local government at $500,000/incident. Construction defect design/planning claims: 12-year statute of repose. Punitive damages capped at 2× compensatory (general rule) but courts apply higher standards in construction contexts. Anti-indemnity provisions under 68 Pa. C.S. §491 invalidate broad indemnity clauses that protect a party from its own negligence — meaning GCs cannot contract around their tort exposure.
Damage Caps — Pennsylvania's Key Limits
Pennsylvania has no cap on compensatory damages in personal injury cases (unlike medical malpractice where the MCARE fund applies). Punitive damages are generally capped at 2× compensatory damages, though courts apply this flexibly in construction cases involving egregious safety violations. Claims against the Commonwealth are capped at $250,000 per person (42 Pa. C.S. §8528). Claims against local government are capped at $500,000 per incident. For privately-owned construction projects, no general statutory cap applies — meaning the Feldman $15.5M verdict (2024) is achievable when facts support it. Statute of repose for construction design/planning: 12 years from act or omission — hard deadline regardless of discovery.
Landmark Pennsylvania Construction Verdicts
Feldman (2024) reset expectations for PA construction recoveries when statutory employer immunity fails. Key cases:
| Amount | Year | Case / Injury |
|---|---|---|
| $15.5M | 2024 | Feldman v. CP Acquisitions 25, L.P. (501 EDA 2023, Pa. Super. Ct. Aug 14 2024) — 62% body burns from crane-to-power-line electrical arcStatutory employer immunity DENIED — trees not 'timber', no SEPTA contract |
Pennsylvania Construction Accident FAQs
What is Pennsylvania's Statutory Employer Doctrine?
Under 77 P.S. §521, when a general contractor subcontracts work, the GC becomes the 'statutory employer' of the sub's employees. The GC gets secondary workers' compensation liability (if the sub's WC insurer can't pay) in exchange for immunity from civil negligence suits by those workers. This is a trade-off — workers lose the right to sue the GC in tort but gain a backup WC guarantor. The doctrine ONLY applies if the McDonald 5-prong test is met. If any element fails, the GC has NO immunity and faces full civil exposure. This binary outcome creates extensive litigation over whether immunity applies.
How do I prove my case is NOT covered by statutory employer immunity?
Attack the McDonald test elements in discovery: (1) Was there a valid contract between the GC and a lawful owner? (Feldman showed an intermediary entity gap.) (2) Did the GC actually occupy/control the premises? (3) Was the subcontract written and proper? (4) Was the sub's work WITHIN the GC's regular business? (If the sub did tree-cutting and the GC normally did grading, element 4 fails.) (5) Was the injured worker truly the sub's employee? (Misclassification or 'special employer' issues can break this.) Your attorney will subpoena contracts, business classifications, tax filings, and prior projects to build the record. Even one failed element defeats immunity.
How does the Feldman $15.5M verdict apply to my case?
Feldman v. CP Acquisitions 25, L.P. (501 EDA 2023, Pa. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2024) is now a leading PA construction injury precedent. A worker was severely burned when a crane struck a power line during tree removal at a SEPTA-owned property. The Superior Court ruled statutory employer immunity did NOT apply because: (1) Vito Braccia Construction had no contract with SEPTA (the actual property owner); (2) 'trees' were not 'timber' within VBC's regular business as defined by the statute. Both element 1 and element 4 failed. The $15.5M verdict was upheld. For your case: look for similar contract-chain gaps and business-scope mismatches. These are the fertile grounds for breaking immunity.
Can I sue for punitive damages in a PA construction case?
Yes, but the bar is high. Pennsylvania requires proof of 'conscious disregard' or willful misconduct — significantly more than simple negligence. Typical construction scenarios that support punitive exposure: (1) GC ordered work to continue after a fatal or near-fatal accident; (2) GC removed safety equipment after OSHA cited the site; (3) GC altered accident reports or intimidated witnesses. Punitive damages are generally capped at 2× compensatory damages as a baseline rule, though courts apply this flexibly. Punitive recoveries are rare but powerful — they drive settlement leverage and force defendants to remediate safety violations across their operations.
How long do I have to file a Pennsylvania construction lawsuit?
General personal injury SOL: 2 years from the injury date under 42 Pa. C.S. §5524. Construction defect claims against design/construction professionals: 12-year statute of repose under 42 Pa. C.S. §5536 (hard deadline regardless of discovery). Workers' comp claim: 3 years from the date of injury. Commonwealth claims require a 6-month Notice of Claim under 42 Pa. C.S. §5522. Do not delay — Pennsylvania courts strictly enforce the 2-year PI SOL and equitable tolling is narrowly available. Consult an attorney within weeks of the injury to preserve all potential claims.
Active Litigation Issues
Active legal debates (as of April 2026):
- McDonald test applied strictly — one missing element opens full civil exposure
- Statutory employer doctrine creates litigation-within-litigation at summary judgment
Informational only — consult a licensed attorney for case-specific advice.
Primary Sources
- jminjurylawyer.com/construction-accidents/an-overview-of-pennsylvanias-statutory-employer-doctrine
- codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-77-ps-workers-compensation/pa-st-sect-77-513
- www.bordaslaw.com/blog-posts/the-pennsylvania-superior-court-affirms-15-5m-worker-injury-verdict-declines-application-of-workers-compensation-acts-immunity-provision
Other State Construction Accident Calculators
New York
Labor Law §240 — absolute liability (only US state)
California
Privette Doctrine — default no GC liability
Illinois
Post-SWA common-law negligence (Carney)
Massachusetts
Corsetti retained-control + §28 double benefits
All States — Main Construction Calculator
Nationwide ranges + Fatal Four hazards + third-party liability theories
Related
Other Calculators for Pennsylvania
Each Pennsylvania calculator reflects state-specific laws (caps, statutes of limitations, comparative-negligence rules) and uses Pennsylvania verdict data where available.
Cities in Pennsylvania
Construction Accident Calculators by State
Construction injury settlement values and labor-law rules vary by state: