Kohout v. Bennett Constr., 296 Neb. 608

Plaintiff Robert Kohout was injured on May 4, 2015 while working on repairs at Brian Shook’s property performed by Nick Bennett.
Mark Bennett owns Bennett Construction (insured); Nick operated separate sole proprietorships (Nick Bennett Construction, Housecraft) and did not carry workers’ compensation insurance.
Nick used old Bennett Construction business cards and altered Bennett Construction proposal forms that stated "Our workers are fully covered by Workmen’s Compensation Insurance." Shook testified he relied on that statement.
Payments for the Shook job included at least one check made out to "Bennett’s Construction," which Mark cashed and then reimbursed Nick; other checks were made to Nick’s businesses.
Kohout sued Bennett Construction (and its insurer) claiming statutory employer liability under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116, alleging (1) Nick had apparent authority to bind Bennett Construction and (2) Mark and Nick operated a joint venture to evade workers’ compensation obligations. The Workers’ Compensation Court dismissed the claim; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bennett Construction is a statutory employer under § 48-116 because Nick had apparent authority to bind Bennett to Shook’s contract	Kohout: Nick’s use of Bennett business cards and proposal forms, the company- addressed check, and Mark’s site visit gave Nick apparent authority; Bennett thereby allowed an uninsured subcontractor to perform	Bennett: Nick contracted and supervised the job as his own business; Mark/Bennett made no manifestations and were unaware of Nick’s use of company forms	Court: No. The indicia of authority were not traceable to Mark/Bennett and did not reasonably induce Shook to believe he contracted with Bennett; Nick lacked apparent authority
Whether Mark and Bennett formed a joint venture with Nick on the Shook job to avoid liability	Kohout: Mark and Nick collaborated post-hailstorm to capture work, Nick used Mark’s forms/statements about coverage, indicating a joint venture	Bennett: Nick was operating independently; no shared profits, no equal control, no evidence of voluntary joint enterprise	Court: No. Plaintiff failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence intent, shared profits, contribution, or joint control required for a joint venture

Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (statutory employer: engaging a subcontractor without requiring workers’ compensation insurance can be a device to escape liability)
RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 294 Neb. 326 (apparent authority exists only when third party’s belief is traceable to principal’s manifestations)
O’Brien v. Barnard, 145 Neb. 596 (joint venture/"scheme" analysis; lack of control, profit sharing, and intent negates joint venture)
Lackman v. Rousselle, 257 Neb. 87 (acts between family members may carry different significance when inferring joint venture or agency)
Rogers v. Hansen, 211 Neb. 132 (agency/apparent authority principles in Nebraska law)