failed to include the Trustees as payees on those checks. In bringing the present action, the Trustees were clearly seeking to recover moneys owed to the funds, and they invoked ERISA on the theory that PCM’s entering into the agreement requiring that its checks to the subcontractor list the Trustees among the payees brought PCM within ERISA’s definition of an employer and in effect obligated it to make the contributions. The Trustees argued that that view was warranted by the statutory definition and an opinion of this Court, both of which state that the term “employer” includes an entity acting “indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(5).” Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp., 68 F.3d 561, 575 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). While we agree with the district court’s
holding that the employer was not the insurers agent holding that an employer did not regard the plaintiff as disabled holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work holding that a surety was not an employer holding that glc 152 15 provides that the only party immune from suit under the statute is the direct employer a special employer is not immune because the special employer is not liable for the payment of workers compensation and there was no agreement between the direct employer and the special employer that the special employer would be liable for the payment of such compensation