Monday, March 5, 2012

Rrun Rrun

EL RRUN RRUN
http://rrunrrun.blogspot.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------
BROWNSVILLE PORT ELEVATOR CANNOT BE SUED IN DEATH OF TEMPORARY WORKER-- TEXAS SUPREME COURT
---------------------------------------------------------------
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTaDNkbiu0ngcEBDSaLQg3nvGG8rVuiGlI_goIQMaiRGCPu3s45mjwBP_W5i__rnXP98Q10Nywb39bzLkvtcoMJtW9gRDNuPCWcwuayQM1ZqVYGW4bymvA9qtk6RrERE-IW0UysDi7cHo/s1600/pob.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTaDNkbiu0ngcEBDSaLQg3nvGG8rVuiGlI_goIQMaiRGCPu3s45mjwBP_W5i__rnXP98Q10Nywb39bzLkvtcoMJtW9gRDNuPCWcwuayQM1ZqVYGW4bymvA9qtk6RrERE-IW0UysDi7cHo/s400/pob.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5716446955858442386" border="0" /></a><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Special to El Rrun Rrun</span><br /><br /><div class="storyheadline"><span class="contentTypeBold" style="font-size:100%;"><i>In Texas, the exclusive remedy provision bars claims by a temporary worker against a client company if the client company shows that it was the worker's employer and that it subscribed to workers' compensation insurance.</i></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></div> <div id="interact"><span style="font-size:100%;"><map name="widgetMap"><area shape="rect" coords="2,2,23,23" href="http://www.riskandinsurance.com/printstory.jsp?storyId=533345794" alt="Print" title="Print"> <area shape="rect" coords="36,2,57,23" href="mailto:?subject=I%20thought%20you%20might%20like%20this%20story%20from%20Risk%20and%20Insurance%20Online&amp;body=I%20thought%20you%20might%20like%20this%20story%20entitled:%20Client%20company%27s%20workers%27%20comp%20policy%20bars%20lawsuit%20brought%20by%20parents.%20%20It%20is%20available%20from%20Risk%20and%20Insurance%20Online%20at%20http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=533345794" alt="Email" title="Email"> <area shape="rect" coords="71,2,92,23" target="_blank" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=533345794&amp;t=Client%20company%27s%20workers%27%20comp%20policy%20bars%20lawsuit%20brought%20by%20parents" alt="Add to Facebook" title="Add to Facebook"> <area shape="rect" coords="105,2,126,23" target="_blank" href="http://twitter.com/?status=Interesting%20story%20on%20%23RiskInsurance%3A%20Client%20company%27s%20workers%27%20comp%20policy%20bars%20lawsuit%20brought%20by%20parents%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riskandinsurance.com%2Fstory.jsp%3FstoryId%3D533345794" alt="Add to Twitter" title="Add to Twitter"> <area shape="rect" coords="139,2,160,23" target="_blank" href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&amp;url=http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=533345794&amp;title=Client%20company%27s%20workers%27%20comp%20policy%20bars%20lawsuit%20brought%20by%20parents&amp;summary=In%20Texas%2C%20the%20exclusive%20remedy%20provision%20bars%20claims%20by%20a%20temporary%20worker%20against%20a%20client%20company%20if%20the%20client%20company%20shows%20that%20it%20was%20the%20worker%27s%20employer%20and%20that%20it%20subscribed%20to%20workers%27%20compensation%20insurance.&amp;source=Risk%20And%20Insurance%20Online" alt="Add to LinkedIn" title="Add to LinkedIn"> <area shape="rect" coords="2,24,90,41" href="mailto:riskletters@lrp.com?subject=letter%20regarding%20story:%20Client%20companys%20workers%20comp%20policy%20bars%20lawsuit%20brought%20by%20parents" alt="Write to the Editor" title="Write to the Editor"> <area shape="rect" coords="105,24,160,41" href="mailto:risksales@lrp.com?subject=request%20for%20reprints%20of%20story:%20Client%20companys%20workers%20comp%20policy%20bars%20lawsuit%20brought%20by%20parents" alt="Reprints" title="Reprints"> </map></span> </div> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><b>Case name:</b> <i>Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados</i>, No. 10-0523 (Tex. 01/27/12).</span></p> <p style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b>Ruling:</b> The Texas Supreme Court held that a lawsuit brought by the parents of a deceased laborer was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of workers' compensation.</span></p> <p> </p><div class="floater" align="left"> </div> <span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><b>What it means:</b> In Texas, the exclusive remedy provision bars claims by a temporary worker against a client company if the client company shows that it was the worker's employer and that it subscribed to workers' compensation insurance.</span> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;"><b>Summary:</b> A laborer worked for a temporary staffing agency. He was assigned to work for its client at a grain storage facility. He suffered a fatal work-related injury during his third day on the job. Both the agency and the client carried workers' compensation insurance. The laborer's parents sued the client. The Texas Supreme Court held that the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy of workers' compensation.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">The court explained that the only exception to the exclusive remedy provision is when a worker's death was caused by the employer's gross negligence. Here, the client was not grossly negligent.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">The parties agreed that the laborer was an employee of both the agency and the client. They disagreed as to whether the laborer was covered by the client's workers' compensation insurance policy. The court explained that a client company is entitled to the protections of the exclusive remedy provision if it was the worker's employer and it was covered by a workers' compensation policy. The court said this is to prevent an employer from splitting its workforce by choosing coverage for some employees but not covering all. A rule against split workforces allows workers to know whether they have the protections of workers' compensation coverage.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:100%;">The court rejected the parents' contention that the client intended to exclude the laborer from coverage. The court said it did not matter whether the client paid its premiums for temporary workers or whether the laborer was covered by a code classification. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=533345794">[Risk and Insurance, March 5, 2012]</a></span></p><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6016803033174468094-2586523710239264414?l=rrunrrun.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>
LINK: http://rrunrrun.blogspot.com/2012/03/brownsville-port-elevator-cannot-be.html

RSS URL: http://rrunrrun.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

This email sponsored by:

1&1 Internet - 6 Months Free on new Hosting packages
http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=7538907

This email is a service of QuickThreads.com.
To manage your subscriptions, login here:
http://www.quickthreads.com/myaccount.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment