I concur in the majority’s result, and in its application of the economic realities test to the facts of this case. I do not agree, however, that the reverse-piercing doctrine is inapplicable here.
The defendants were the sole shareholders of the Grand Haven Die Casting Company, a closely-held corporation and the plaintiff’s “legal” or “actual” employer. Ante at 689. I would hold that, under these circumstances, the defendants may take refuge in the exclusive remedy provision if they show that respecting Grand Haven’s corporate veil “would subvert justice or perpetuate fraud.” Bitar v Wakim, 456 Mich 428, 431; 572 NW2d 191 (1998), citing Wells v Fire*697stone Tire & Rubber Co, 421 Mich 641, 650; 364 NW2d 670 (1984).
Such a showing cannot, however, be made under the facts alleged in the instant case. The plaintiff here, “[u]nlike the plaintiff in Wells . . . never claimed that [the defendant] was h[is] employer in order to receive worker’s compensation benefits.” Bitar, supra at 433. Thus, “there is no evidence that [the plaintiff] structured h[is] cause of action in such a way as to reap all the benefits, and none of the drawbacks, of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act. Rather, [the plaintiff’s] claims simply recognized the corporate structure established by the defendant.” Id.
In sum, the plaintiff “injured h[im]self on property owned by a legal entity that was not h[is] employer.[1] Thus, []he can bring a lawsuit against the owner of that property without violating the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act.” Id. at 434, citing 6 Larson, Worker’s Compensation, § 72.81(b), pp 14-290.93 to 14-290.94.
Under the facts of this case, the defendants cannot show that honoring Grand Haven’s corporate existence would “subvert justice or perpetuate fraud.” Bitar, supra at 431. I agree with the majority that the only relevant issue on remand is whether, under the economic realities test, Lincoln Engineering was the plaintiff’s “employer” for worker’s compensation purposes.
Cavanagh and Kelly, JJ., concurred with Brickley, J.Pending, of course, the trial court’s resolution of the economic realities test issue on remand.