Kohout v. Bennett Constr., 894 N.W.2d 821

Plaintiff Robert L. Kohout was injured on May 4, 2015 while working on repairs at Brian Shook’s property; Kohout worked for Nick Bennett (sole proprietor) who contracted to do the repairs.
Mark Bennett operates Bennett Construction (sole proprietorship) and had previously employed or subcontracted to his son, Nick; Bennett Construction carried workers’ compensation insurance, Nick’s sole proprietorships did not.
Shook received a business card and an altered proposal form that bore a "Bennett’s Construction & Roofing" logo and language stating workers were covered by compensation insurance; Shook wrote one check addressed to "Bennett’s Construction" but later addressed checks to Nick.
Kohout sued Bennett Construction (and its insurer) seeking workers’ compensation benefits under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116, alleging Bennett was his statutory employer because (1) Nick had apparent authority to bind Bennett and acted as an uninsured subcontractor, and/or (2) Mark and Nick operated a joint venture to obtain storm repair work.
The Workers’ Compensation Court found Kohout was employed by Nick’s businesses (not Bennett Construction), that Bennett Construction was not Kohout’s direct or statutory employer under § 48-116, and dismissed the petition; Kohout appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bennett Construction is Kohout’s statutory employer under § 48-116 because Nick had apparent authority to contract with Shook on Bennett’s behalf	Kohout: Nick used Bennett-branded cards/forms, Bennett cashed a check, and Mark visited the site — these manifestations made it reasonable for Shook to believe Nick represented Bennett, so Bennett employed an uninsured subcontractor and is statutorily liable	Bennett: Nick negotiated, supervised, and performed the job in his own capacity; Mark/Bennett made no manifestations authorizing Nick and derived no benefit from the Shook contract	Court: No apparent authority — Shook’s belief was not traceable to manifestations by Mark/Bennett; indicia (card/form) were not shown to be authorized by Bennett, so Bennett not statutory employer
Whether Mark and Nick formed a joint venture that renders Bennett liable under § 48-116	Kohout: Post-hailstorm activity showed a family scheme to obtain repairs; sharing of forms/tools and occasional profit-splitting indicate a joint venture to evade comp. laws	Bennett: No voluntary agreement, no shared profits, no equal control, no significant contributions by Mark to the Shook job	Court: No joint venture — Kohout failed to prove intent or the required elements by clear and convincing evidence; family ties and limited interactions insufficient

Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (recognizing that hiring a subcontractor without ensuring workers’ compensation insurance can be a device to avoid statutory liability)
RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 294 Neb. 326 (discussing apparent authority and the necessity that third‑party belief be traceable to principal’s manifestations)
O’Brien v. Barnard, 145 Neb. 596 (holding that a business relationship resembling a lease/benefit did not establish a joint venture or statutory employer liability absent other factors)
Lackman v. Rousselle, 257 Neb. 87 (noting family relationships may affect inferences drawn about joint ventures; closeness alone does not imply joint venture)
Thomas v. Hansen, 524 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa) (example where facts and intent supported finding of joint venture created to avoid workers’ compensation requirements)