What I described is actually how it works as I was taught in a university law course. Your "economic analysis" sounds to me like logical speculation on your part, which while it may be a superficially valid way to parse the situation, and under historical common law could have been how courts determined the outcome, is from what I learned simply not how courts actually handle it. "Saved costs" is not a category from which a judgement could be obtained, while "profits" is, and "profits" is an actual motivation to set up an unclean liability shifting arrangement.

You will see this case continue to move forward through the courts which it would not--plaintiff's lawyers would not even pursue it--if you were correct.

and as a final point, I was not drawing an analogy to independent contract workers, I was using one as an example of an arrangement a court would see through; remove that term and my argument still applies.