1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

  2. ROCKETS GAMEDAY
    Dave and Bryson (@RedNationBlogga) hop on for the late-night recap after the Rockets take on Nikola Jokic and the Nuggets in Denver. Come join us!

    LIVE! ClutchFans on YouTube
Welcome ClutchFans Live

Texas Plants don't have to Pay Contract Workers Injury Claims

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout' started by pgabriel, Apr 3, 2009.

Tags:
  1. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    44,264
    Likes Received:
    4,005
    link


    AUSTIN — The Texas Supreme Court, in a rehearing of a controversial case, ruled today that refineries and other industrial plants are shielded against liability claims from contract workers injured on the job.

    The court, in a 6-3 decision, reached the same conclusion as its initial opinion last fall. It held that the liability shield covering general contractors can be extended to plant owners.

    The opinion in Entergy Gulf States Inc. v. John Summers had angered a group of lawmakers, who asked the court to reverse it. They said the court had wrongly expanded immunity.

    A bill pending in the House Business & Industry Committee would overturn the court's decision.

    Business groups favor the Entergy decision, while labor groups opposed it.

    Had the decision been in effect before the 2005 BP refinery explosion in Texas City, plaintiff's attorneys said injured contract workers might not have been able to sue the company for damages.

    In Friday's opinion, the court majority said that legislative history favors Entergy, not Summers. The legislative history that supports Summers is found in bills that failed to pass, the court said.

    Excluding a premises owner who acts as a general contractor fails to serve the public policy of encouraging workers comp coverage for all workers, the court added.

    Workers' compensation is a no-fault system under which an employer, through an insurance policy, covers an employee's medical expenses and part of any lost wages. A covered worker is unable to sue the employer for negligence to obtain additional compensation for an on-the-job injury.

    Summers was a contract worker injured in a 2001 accident at an Entergy plant in Bridge City. Since he was covered by a workers' comp policy purchased by Entergy, the court held that he couldn't collect damages for alleged negligence.
     
    #1 pgabriel, Apr 3, 2009
  2. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    44,264
    Likes Received:
    4,005
    please move this to D&D
     
    #2 pgabriel, Apr 3, 2009
  3. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    9,108
    What is there to D&D? If you are 1099 (contract), then its up to the individual to carry their own workers comp.
     
    #3 Space Ghost, Apr 3, 2009
  4. vlaurelio

    vlaurelio Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    21,310
    Likes Received:
    11,755
    I thought the company purchased it for him?

     
    #4 vlaurelio, Apr 3, 2009
  5. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    44,264
    Likes Received:
    4,005

    contract worker could mean you work for an agency or in the case of the BP workers who died, you work for an engineering firm who is consulting.
     
    #5 pgabriel, Apr 3, 2009
  6. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    9,108
    Which company? The oil refinery? No way would they take a policy out for a GC. One of the strongest points of contract work is distancing themselves from the liability and commitment. Otherwise, they may as well hire them on as a temp employee or something.

    If you work for an engineering firm, then you are not a contractor.... you're an employee...and you would have works comp, regardless of where you work, as long as you're on company time. This article specifically states general contractors.

    Im pretty sure refineries are not shielded if they are found liable for the procuring cause of the accident. If something explodes and injures anyone, then the refinery is held liable, regardless if they are employee, contractor or trespassing. As a contractor, if I am walking across the refinery and I trip over my own shoe string and break my arm, the refinery isn't held liable. If I am an employee and I am on the clock, and my boss lets me go to mcdonalds to get a drink, if I trip on my own shoe strings and break my arm in the parking lot, then workers comp covers me.
     
    #6 Space Ghost, Apr 3, 2009
  7. CrazyJoeDavola

    CrazyJoeDavola Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,353
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    Maybe I am not understanding the article, but the whole point of worker's comp coverage is to employees/contractors in full for their economic loss on a "no fault" basis in exchange for the right to sue.

    Unless BP's worker's comp policy did not cover these workers for their losses, then I don't see the problem.
     
    #7 CrazyJoeDavola, Apr 3, 2009
  8. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    18,999
    Likes Received:
    9,108
    Workers comp. is insurance .. which requires someone to pay the premium. If you hire me, the general contractor, to fix a leak in your roof and I fall off your roof, who's paying the workers comp premium? I'm not. You're not.
     
    #8 Space Ghost, Apr 3, 2009
  9. CrazyJoeDavola

    CrazyJoeDavola Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,353
    Likes Received:
    3,116
    I understand Workers comp. I have taken several classes on it.

    I'm talking about the ruling. Worker's compenstation is "no fault" coverage for injured employees (and in some instances, contractors).

    The article, unless I am not reading it right, is stating that contractors have no right to sue on top of receiving worker's compensation benefits (just like regular employees). It says nothing about contractors not receiving WC benefits.

    The ruling essentially prevents people from double dipping no?
     
    #9 CrazyJoeDavola, Apr 3, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page

Style
ClutchFans Dark

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now