Plaintiffs-appellants Rafael A. Corpuz and Clara Y. S. Corpuz appeal from a summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Hawaiian Electric Company, Limited.

The facts .on which the lower court granted summary judgment to defendant are insufficient for this court to determine whether or not the defendant was the employer, *289within the definition of employer in R.L.H. 1955, § 97-1.1 See Re Ichijiro Ikoma, 23 Haw. 291; Uyeno v. Chun Kim Sut, 31 Haw. 102; Wright Minors v. City & County, 41 Haw. 603, where this court determined under definite factual situations that the defendant-owner of the premises and operator of the business was the statutory employer.

On the basis of the present record, all that appears in connection with the work being performed under the alleged independent contract is that defendant-appellee’s electric plant was undergoing alteration and remodeling when plaintiff-appellant, Rafael A. Corpuz, sustained injury. It is our view that in the light of the cases above cited, this was not enough of a factual showing to enable the trial court to properly determine whether defendantappellee was the statutory employer under section 97-1. Absent a more complete factual showing, defendant-appellee was not entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law.

Plaintiffs-appellants urge that the three aforementioned cases are unsound and should be overruled. However, having considered the cases, we decline to do so.

Further, appellants’ contention that the 1963 amendment to R.L.H. 1955, § 97-1 constituted a legislative construction of prior law is without merit.2

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.