Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Andregg Contracting, Inc. and Bacilio Zapata, 391 S.W.3d 573

Andregg Contracting, Inc. hired Zapata to perform cleanup work on two nearby demolition sites over about three weeks; Zapata was injured while removing a tree.
Andregg carried a CGL policy with MCC that excludes coverage for employee injuries and for worker’s compensation-type losses.
Trial court concluded Zapata was an independent contractor, triggering indemnity coverage for Andregg under MCC’s policy.
Zapata’s underlying claim against Andregg resulted in a judgment of $362,987.48 for negligence.
MCC sued seeking a declaration that it owed no indemnity; the trial court found in MCC’s favor, but the court of appeals reversed and held Zapata was an independent contractor; MCC appeals to affirm the trial court’s original finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zapata was an independent contractor or employee under Limestone factors	Zapata is an employee; the task-control shows employer liability	Zapata is an independent contractor; control was limited	Zapata was an independent contractor; MCC owes indemnity to Andregg

Limestone Prod. Dist. v. McNamara, 71 S.W.3d 308 (Tex. 2002) (five Limestone factors used to determine control and status)
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Goodson, 568 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Civ. App.-Texarkana 1978) (control over means and details of work)
Pitchfork Land & Cattle Co. v. King, 346 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1961) (gives factors for independent contractor analysis)
Thompson v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island, 789 S.W.2d 277 (Tex. 1990) (hands-on control and duration as indicators of independence)
Ochoa v. Winerich Motor Sales, 94 S.W.2d 416 (Tex. 1936) (preclusion of single-task approach; inapplicable to ongoing relationship)
Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Davis, 683 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 2012) (applied Limestone factors to the entire relationship; worker deemed independent contractor)