HCBeck, Ltd. v. Charles Rice

Summary

This document is a dissenting opinion by Justice Johnson, joined by Justice Medina, in the Texas Supreme Court case concerning whether HCBeck, Ltd. qualified as a statutory employer under Texas Workers’ Compensation Act section 406.123. The dissent argues that HCBeck did not substantively provide or assure workers’ compensation coverage for the injured subcontractor’s employee and therefore should not receive statutory employer immunity. The dissent would affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.

Holdings

1. In the dissent's view, HCBeck did not provide workers' compensation insurance because it merely required Haley Greer to participate in FMR's insurance program and agreed to secure coverage only if FMR failed to do so; FMR actually secured and paid for the policy covering Rice.
2. In the dissent's view, HCBeck was not Rice's statutory employer and should not receive statutory immunity because its involvement in obtaining and maintaining the insurance was too minimal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a general contractor qualifies as a statutory employer under Texas Labor Code section 406.123 when its contracts require a subcontractor to obtain workers' compensation coverage through an owner-controlled insurance program, but the owner actually secures and pays for the coverage.
2. Whether contractual facilitation or a contingent promise to provide workers' compensation insurance constitutes providing insurance under section 406.123 so as to confer statutory employer immunity.

Disposition

other