Kohout v. Bennett Constr., 296 Neb. 608

Robert Kohout was injured May 4, 2015 while working on repairs at Brian Shook’s property; he sued Bennett Construction (owned by Mark Bennett) and its insurer for workers’ compensation benefits.
Mark Bennett operates Bennett Construction as a sole proprietorship and sometimes hires subcontractors; his son Nick operates separate sole proprietorships (Nick Bennett Construction and Housecraft) doing roofing/gutter work.
After a 2014 hailstorm, Shook hired Nick directly; Nick provided a business card and an altered Bennett Construction proposal form that stated "Our workers are fully covered by Workmen’s Compensation Insurance." Neither of Nick’s sole proprietorships had workers’ compensation insurance; Bennett Construction did.
Shook paid Nick by checks (one made out to "Bennett’s Construction," later replaced by Mark), Nick supervised the work and paid Kohout from his own business (Housecraft); Mark made one site visit and cashed a check but did not supervise or direct the work.
The Workers’ Compensation Court found Kohout was employed by Nick’s businesses and that Bennett Construction was neither his direct nor statutory employer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bennett Construction was Kohout’s statutory employer under § 48-116 ("scheme, artifice, or device")	Kohout: Nick had apparent authority to bind Bennett Construction and Bennett allowed an uninsured subcontractor to act, creating a device to avoid liability	Bennett: Nick contracted and supervised the job independently; Mark/Bennett made no manifestations that would bind them and did not benefit from the job	Court: No. Nick lacked apparent authority traceable to Mark; Bennett did not create a scheme under § 48-116
Whether a joint venture existed between Mark and Nick that would make Bennett liable	Kohout: Mark and Nick intentionally collaborated post-hailstorm to capture work, sharing forms/clients, implying a joint venture to avoid insurance requirements	Bennett: No voluntary agreement, profit-sharing, joint control, or significant contribution by Mark on the Shook job	Court: No. Kohout failed to prove a joint venture by clear and convincing evidence

Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586, 883 N.W.2d 676 (recognizing that hiring an uninsured subcontractor without compelling insurance can be a device to avoid the Act)
RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 294 Neb. 326, 886 N.W.2d 240 (apparent authority principles; third party belief must be traceable to principal)
O’Brien v. Barnard, 145 Neb. 596, 17 N.W.2d 611 (standards for finding a statutory employer or joint venture; no liability where no control, profit-sharing, or intent)
Thomas v. Hansen, 524 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa 1994) (joint venture found where arrangement was designed to avoid workers’ compensation requirements)
Lackman v. Rousselle, 257 Neb. 87, 596 N.W.2d 15 (family relationships may affect inference of joint venture; permissive use of tools by family does not alone show joint venture)