TIC Energy & Chemical, Inc. v. Martin
2016 Tex. LEXIS 468
| Tex. | 2016Background
- Kevin Martin, an employee at Union Carbide, lost a leg in a workplace accident and received workers’ compensation under an owner-controlled insurance program (OCIP) administered by Dow/Chemical.
- Martin sued TIC Energy & Chemical, a subcontractor working at the site, alleging negligent injury by TIC employees.
- TIC moved for summary judgment asserting the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy defense, relying on a written agreement under Tex. Lab. Code § 406.123 where Union Carbide’s OCIP extended coverage to TIC and its employees.
- Martin responded that Tex. Lab. Code § 406.122(b) excludes subcontractors (and their employees) from being general-contractor employees when the subcontractor is an independent contractor and has a written agreement assuming employer responsibilities; he argued that exclusion prevents TIC from claiming co-employee immunity.
- The trial court denied TIC’s motion; the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning the statutes irreconcilably conflict and that TIC failed to negate § 406.122(b). The Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Martin) | Defendant's Argument (TIC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a subcontractor covered by a § 406.123 written agreement is a deemed employee of the general contractor for exclusive-remedy purposes | §406.122(b) controls: when a subcontractor is an independent contractor who assumes employer responsibilities by written agreement, the subcontractor and its employees are not the general contractor’s employees, so TIC cannot claim co-employee immunity | §406.122 is a general rule; §406.123 is a permissive exception: when a general contractor agrees in writing to provide workers’ compensation coverage, it becomes the statutory employer and subcontractor is deemed an employee, entitling TIC to exclusive-remedy immunity | The Court held §406.122(b) is the general rule and §406.123 is a specific, permissive exception; because the parties had a §406.123 agreement TIC is the statutory employer and entitled to the exclusive-remedy defense |
Key Cases Cited
- HCBeck, Ltd. v. Rice, 284 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. 2009) (holding a general contractor who provides workers’ compensation coverage by written agreement becomes the statutory employer entitled to exclusivity)
- Garza v. Zachry Constr. Corp., 373 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, pet. denied) (applied §406.123 to deem subcontractor and its employees fellow employees for exclusive-remedy)
- Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., 135 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (recognized statutory employer/employee relationship can extend through multiple subcontractor tiers)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (relevant to statutory interpretation and scope of employer/employee definitions under Workers’ Compensation Act)