545 S.W.3d 708
Tex. App.2018Background
- Flextronics contracted with Titan to perform IT/network work at a Flextronics facility; Titan agreed to "provide, pay for and maintain" workers' compensation for its employees and subcontractors. Titan subcontracted work to Outsource; Halferty was an Outsource employee.
- While descending a stepladder on the job, Halferty was shoved when a roll-up door was opened by Flextronics employee Shaw, causing injury.
- Halferty sued Flextronics for negligence and gross negligence; Flextronics moved for traditional summary judgment claiming entitlement to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act "exclusive remedy" defense as a statutory employer under Tex. Labor Code § 406.123(a).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Flextronics; Halferty appealed arguing Flextronics failed to "provide" workers' compensation coverage as required for the exclusive remedy defense.
- The appellate court examined whether Flextronics ‘‘provided’’ coverage to Halferty (an Outsource employee) under § 406.123(a) and whether HCBeck v. Rice controlled.
- The court reversed, holding Flextronics did not provide or make available workers' compensation coverage to Halferty and therefore was not entitled to exclusive-remedy immunity; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flextronics "provided" workers' compensation coverage under Tex. Lab. Code § 406.123(a) so as to be a statutory employer and obtain exclusive-remedy immunity | Halferty: Flextronics did not "provide" coverage; contract merely shifted obligation to Titan and Flextronics never supplied or guaranteed coverage to subcontractor employees | Flextronics: Its written agreement with Titan satisfied § 406.123(a); by contract it provided coverage to subcontractors (analogous to HCBeck) | Court held Flextronics did not "provide" coverage as a matter of law; no OCIP or contractual guaranty/alternate coverage, so exclusive-remedy defense unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (explains statutory-employer exclusivity under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act)
- HCBeck, Ltd. v. Rice, 284 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. 2009) (OCIP and contractual guaranty can constitute "providing" coverage under § 406.123(a))
- Hunt Constr. Group, Inc. v. Konecny, 290 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (requiring a subcontractor to obtain coverage does not alone equate to "providing" coverage for exclusive-remedy immunity)