Quindon D. Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 212 So. 3d 58

Quindon D. Thomas, employed by contractor American Plant Services (APS), was severely burned on Chevron’s refinery premises when a Chevron employee opened a valve (Oct. 13, 2012).
Chevron and APS had a contract; in 2010 Chevron agreed to provide workers’ compensation coverage for APS employees through an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP).
Thomas received workers’ compensation payments from Chevron and Indemnity Insurance (totaling over $900,000); Indemnity intervened seeking reimbursement if Thomas recovered in tort.
Thomas sued Chevron and Chevron employee Dwayne Haisch for negligence and premises liability; Chevron moved for summary judgment asserting MWCA exclusive-remedy/statutory-employer immunity.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for Chevron; Thomas appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chevron is a statutory employer entitled to MWCA immunity	Thomas: Chevron is a premises owner, not a general/prime contractor under Mississippi precedent; voluntary provision of OCIP does not create statutory-employer status	Chevron: By contracting with APS and providing OCIP benefits, Chevron acted as a general contractor and thus is entitled to exclusive-remedy immunity under MWCA	Chevron is not a statutory employer; premises ownership and voluntary provision of coverage do not confer MWCA immunity; summary judgment for Chevron reversed and remanded for trial
Whether trial court erred in denying Thomas’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment	Thomas: Cross-motion sought declaration Chevron lacked statutory-employer immunity	Chevron: Opposed	Court reversed denial of cross-motion as consequence of reversing Chevron’s summary judgment; remanded

Doubleday v. Boyd Constr., 418 So. 2d 823 (Miss. 1982) (contractor who contractually required subcontractor coverage may be treated as having “secured” compensation)
Falls v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 477 So. 2d 254 (Miss. 1985) (premises owner/permittee not necessarily a prime/general contractor for §71-3-7 purposes)
Nash v. Damson Oil Corp., 480 So. 2d 1095 (Miss. 1985) (owner/operator with ownership interest is not the type of contractor contemplated by the statute)
Richmond v. Benchmark, 692 So. 2d 60 (Miss. 1997) (declined to overrule Doubleday; contractor may bear burden to secure coverage when statute applies)
Salyer v. Mason Techs., Inc., 690 So. 2d 1183 (Miss. 1997) (contractor entitled to immunity where facts align with Doubleday contractor model)
Magee v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 551 So. 2d 182 (Miss. 1989) (owner who had no statutory duty to secure compensation may not acquire immunity by voluntarily assuming coverage)
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (Texas holds a premises owner can be a general contractor entitled to immunity; distinguished by Mississippi Court)