with “at the time the contractor or subcontractor was engaged to perform work” encompasses a continuous spectrum and includes the complete time frame in which the subcontractor is engaged to perform the work. In other words, in order to transfer liability to the Fund, a general contractor may not rely upon a Certificate reflecting an expired policy as documentation of workers’ compensation insurance. To interpret the language in the statute otherwise would allow a general contractor to turn a blind eye to information which is readily evident upon a cursory inspection of the Certificate. Such an interpretation would lead to an absurd result not possibly intended by the legislature. See Kiriakides v. United Artists Communications, Inc., 312 S.C. 271, 275, 440 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1994) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, in an attempt to
recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result recognizing that the courts will reject that meaning when to accept it would lead to a result so plainly absurd that it could not possibly have been intended by the legislature or would defeat the plain legislative intention holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result holding that we may look beyond text of statute or rule where plain language is unambiguous but would lead to an absurd result that drafters cannot have intended holding that a literal interpretation should not be adhered to when it would lead to absurd results