Kohout v. Bennett Constr., 296 Neb. 608

Robert Kohout worked for Nick Bennett (sole proprietor of Nick Bennett Construction/Housecraft) and was injured on May 4, 2015 while working on repairs at Brian Shook’s property.
The Shook repairs originated from a 2014 hailstorm; Nick solicited and performed the work, used old Bennett Construction business cards and a Bennett-branded proposal form (which stated workers were covered by compensation insurance).
Bennett Construction is a sole proprietorship owned by Mark Bennett (Nick’s father); Bennett Construction did carry workers’ compensation insurance, but Nick’s sole proprietorships did not.
Shook paid Nick with checks; one check was written to “Bennett’s Construction” (which Mark cashed and then reimbursed Nick), but subsequent payments were made to Nick or Nick’s company; Mark made one short visit to the jobsite and did not direct the work.
Kohout sued Bennett Construction and its insurer for workers’ compensation benefits, arguing Bennett Construction was his statutory employer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116; the Workers’ Compensation Court dismissed the claim, and Kohout appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bennett Construction is Kohout’s statutory employer under § 48-116	Kohout: Mark/Bennett created a device to avoid liability because Nick acted with apparent authority (cards, proposal form, check cashed) and was an uninsured subcontractor	Bennett: Nick contracted and supervised the job as an independent, uninsured contractor; Mark/Bennett made no manifestations creating authority and received no benefit	Court held Bennett Construction was not Kohout’s statutory employer; Nick lacked apparent authority and no scheme under § 48-116 proven
Whether Nick and Mark formed a joint venture to obtain hailstorm work (making Bennett liable)	Kohout: Mark and Nick intended jointly to obtain work and used Bennett’s forms and reputation to induce work and avoid comp. liability	Bennett: No evidence of voluntary agreement, shared profits, substantial contribution, or joint control; Nick operated independently	Court held no joint venture: plaintiff failed to prove clear and convincing evidence of joint venture elements

Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586, 883 N.W.2d 676 (2016) (contractor engaging uninsured subcontractor can constitute device to evade workers’ compensation liability)
RM Campbell Indus. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 294 Neb. 326, 886 N.W.2d 240 (2016) (apparent authority principles and agency manifestations)
O’Brien v. Barnard, 145 Neb. 596, 17 N.W.2d 611 (1945) (factors negating statutory employer/joint venture liability where owner lacked control, profit share, or intent)
Thomas v. Hansen, 524 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa 1994) (joint venture found where arrangement clearly intended to avoid workers’ compensation requirements)
Lackman v. Rousselle, 257 Neb. 87, 596 N.W.2d 15 (1999) (family relationships may affect inference of joint venture; mere sharing of tools or family closeness insufficient)