Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

WMATA: A General Contractor Securing Longshore Benefits Received Tort Immunity

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 15, 2026 · Updated October 29, 2026

Decision: Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 925 (1984).

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Johnson, decided June 26, 1984, addressed a project-wide workers’ compensation insurance policy covering Metro construction subcontractors. The Court found tort immunity under the law then in force. Congress changed that contractor-immunity rule on September 28, 1984; this is a historical holding, not a basis for assuming that buying project insurance establishes immunity today.

The contractor insured the entire construction project

WMATA purchased a policy covering employees of subcontractors, including workers whose direct employers had not secured separate Longshore coverage. The injured workers received statutory awards and then sued WMATA in tort.

Sections 4 and 5 link compensation responsibility and immunity

The Court read the former sections 4(a) and 5(a) together: A contractor’s contingent duty to secure compensation could bring it within the employer-immunity provision. Its reasoning concerned the pre-amendment statutory language. WMATA, 467 U.S. at 931–940.

Advance wrap-up coverage did not forfeit immunity

The Court rejected the argument that immunity arose only after a subcontractor first defaulted. Securing coverage up front satisfied the statutory protection and furthered reliable compensation payment.

Contract and statutory status still matter

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded. Later that year, Public Law 98-426, section 4(b), amended 33 U.S.C. section 905(a): For contractor immunity under that subsection, the contractor is deemed an employer only if the subcontractor fails to secure compensation. The amendment displaced the broader immunity rule described above. A present claim requires separate review of the governing statute, the coverage arrangements and the actual employment relationships.

Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Brennan and Stevens, dissented. The subcontractors had secured compensation through the wrap-up policy, so WMATA’s statutory backup duty had never been triggered. He thought the majority used employer narrowly when describing that duty but broadly when granting immunity. In his view, a contractor became the relevant employer only after a subcontractor default and the contractor stepped in to secure compensation. Arranging useful insurance did not justify extending immunity beyond the statute’s terms. That disagreement concerned the earlier statute; the later contractor-immunity amendment described above must govern any present analysis. WMATA, 467 U.S. at 941–946 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

Key takeaways

• Identify which entity secured the operative compensation policy.
• Trace contractor, subcontractor, and employee relationships.
• Confirm that the injury and employer fall within the Longshore Act.
• Do not use the pre-amendment wrap-up policy holding to assume current tort immunity.