Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
282 S.W.3d 433 | Texas Supreme Court | 2009
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Entergy, a property owner, hired IMC as a contractor and provided workers' compensation insurance for IMC's employees. When an IMC employee was injured, he sued Entergy for negligence. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that property owners who act as general contractors and provide workers' comp insurance to their contractors' employees get the same legal protection as traditional employers—meaning injured workers can only collect through workers' comp, not through lawsuits. This shields property owners from negligence claims if they follow the insurance requirement.
Key Takeaways
- •If you're hired by a property owner who provides workers' comp insurance for your employees, that owner likely has immunity from your negligence lawsuits—you're limited to workers' comp benefits only.
- •Property owners acting as general contractors can now claim statutory employer status and the exclusive remedy defense, just like traditional general contractors, if they provide workers' comp coverage.
- •Make sure your contract clearly states who is providing workers' compensation insurance and verify coverage is actually in place before work starts—this affects your legal remedies if someone gets hurt.
Premises owner acting as general contractor qualifies for exclusive remedy defense.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a property owner sue me if I get hurt on their job, or am I limited to workers' comp?
If the property owner provided workers' compensation insurance for your employees under your contract, they likely have immunity from negligence lawsuits. You and your employees would be limited to collecting only through the workers' comp system, not through a personal injury lawsuit. This protection applies even if the property owner is acting as their own general contractor.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.