Little v. Delta Steel, Inc.
409 S.W.3d 704
Tex. App.2013Background
- Johnny Little, a Delta Steel crane operator, was killed on March 11, 2009 when a steel plate dislodged from an electromagnetic crane during a storm; the crane he operated lacked a battery-backup unit.
- Three other cranes at the plant had battery backups; Delta employees had warned company officials about the lack of a backup on Little’s crane.
- Mary Little (wife) received workers’ compensation death benefits under a Zurich policy administered by ESIS; Zurich correspondence and an endorsement later reflected that Delta Steel was added to the policy effective at inception.
- Appellants sued Delta Steel (and later added Reliance, Delta’s parent) for negligence and gross negligence; Reliance was sued on a negligent-undertaking theory (i.e., it voluntarily assumed workplace-safety responsibilities).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Delta Steel (based on estoppel/election of remedies and exclusive-remedy defenses) and for Reliance on negligence and gross-negligence claims; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants can sue Delta Steel in negligence despite Mary’s receipt of workers’ compensation benefits | Mary’s acceptance was not an informed election and she was misled about which entity was the insurer, so exclusive-remedy/estoppel shouldn't bar suit | Delta Steel argued Mary applied for and accepted WC benefits under the insurer and thus appellants are estopped from denying coverage; exclusive remedy applies | Court held Mary accepted benefits with knowledge of material facts and quasi-estoppel bars the negligence claims against Delta Steel (affirmed) |
| Whether Reliance (parent) owed Little a duty via a voluntary undertaking (Restatement §324A) | Reliance assumed responsibility for subsidiary safety (safety manual, audits, inspection requirements, reporting, authority to require corrective action), so it had a duty to exercise reasonable care | Reliance said parent ordinarily owes no duty to subsidiary employees and it did not control day-to-day operations or supplant Delta’s duties | Court held Reliance voluntarily undertook Delta’s safety duties as to inspections and safety policy and thus a duty exists; summary judgment for Reliance on ordinary negligence reversed and remanded |
| Whether Reliance’s gross-negligence claim survived summary judgment | Appellants did not contest the no-evidence grounds for gross negligence on appeal | Reliance moved no-evidence and traditional SJ on gross negligence | Appellants failed to challenge the no-evidence ground on appeal; summary judgment for Reliance as to gross negligence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. 2005) (workers’ compensation coverage must be explicit to invoke the exclusive-remedy protection)
- Casados v. Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C., 358 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. 2012) (explaining the quid pro quo and scope of the workers’ compensation exclusive-remedy scheme)
- Lindley v. McKnight, 349 S.W.3d 113 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011) (quasi-estoppel bars claims when a party accepted benefits while knowing material facts)
- Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell, 867 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1993) (duty to provide a safe workplace depends on actual control or right of control over the safety aspect that caused the injury)
- Torrington Co. v. Stutzman, 46 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2000) (recognizes liability where a party voluntarily undertakes services and fails to exercise reasonable care)