Robert L. Kohout v. Bennett Construction and The Travelers Indemnity Company

Kohout v. Bennett Constr., 296 Neb. 608 (2017) · Nebraska Supreme Court · May 5, 2017 · No. S-16-609

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Robert L. Kohout’s workers’ compensation claim against Bennett Construction and its insurer. The court held that Bennett Construction was neither Kohout’s direct nor statutory employer because Nick Bennett lacked apparent authority to bind Bennett Construction and the evidence did not establish a joint venture or scheme to avoid workers’ compensation liability.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Funke, J.; Heavican, C.J.; Wright, J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Kelch, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
May 5, 2017
Docket number
S-16-609
Procedural posture
Kohout appealed the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court’s dismissal of his petition for workers’ compensation benefits. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Standard of review
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-185, the appellate court may modify, reverse, or set aside a Workers’ Compensation Court decision only when the compensation court acted without or in excess of its powers, the decision was procured by fraud, there was insufficient competent evidence to support it, or the findings of fact did not support the order or award. Factual determinations are not disturbed unless contrary to law or clearly wrong in light of the evidence, while questions of law are reviewed independently.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Robert L. Kohout v. Bennett Construction, The Travelers Indemnity Company
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

workers compensationappellate procedurestandard of reviewemployment lawconstruction law

Practice areas

workers compensationemployment lawconstruction lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Bennett Construction was Kohout’s statutory employer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116 because it engaged an uninsured subcontractor through a scheme, artifice, or device to avoid workers’ compensation liability.
  2. Whether Nick Bennett had apparent authority to bind Bennett Construction to the construction contract with Shook.
  3. Whether Mark Bennett and Nick Bennett or their businesses formed a joint venture concerning the Shook construction project.

Holdings

  1. A Workers’ Compensation Court decision may be modified, reversed, or set aside only on the grounds specified in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-185; factual determinations are reviewed for clear error or whether they are contrary to law, and questions of law are reviewed independently.
  2. Bennett Construction was not Kohout’s statutory employer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116 because Kohout failed to establish that Bennett Construction engaged in a scheme, artifice, or device to avoid workers’ compensation liability through the Shook project.
  3. Nick Bennett lacked apparent authority to bind Bennett Construction to the contract with Shook; Shook contracted with Nick alone.
  4. Mark Bennett and Nick Bennett, or their businesses, did not form a joint venture concerning the Shook project.

Key quotations

Based on the preceding facts, Shook could not have reasonably believed that he was contracting with Mark or Bennett Construction. (618)
Accordingly, we hold that neither Mark nor Bennett Construction was engaged in a joint venture with Nick concerning the Shook job. (623)

Factual background

Robert L. Kohout worked for Nick Bennett, who operated Nick Bennett Construction and Housecraft, on a construction project at Brian Shook’s residence. The project had been obtained, negotiated, performed, and supervised by Nick; Bennett Construction owner Mark Bennett had only limited contact with the site. Nick used Bennett Construction business cards and a proposal form stating that workers were covered by workers’ compensation insurance, although Nick’s businesses had no such insurance and Mark testified he was unaware Nick was still using the materials. Kohout fell from a barn roof on May 4, 2015, and was injured.

Procedural history

Kohout was injured while performing construction work at the Shook residence and petitioned for workers’ compensation benefits from Bennett Construction and its insurer. After trial, the Workers’ Compensation Court found that Kohout was employed by Nick Bennett Construction or Housecraft and that Bennett Construction was neither his direct nor statutory employer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-116. Kohout appealed, arguing that Bennett Construction was his employer under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…