[W] Reyes v. Storage & Processors6/27/2002
OPINION WITHDRAWN and new opinion filed September 13, 2002.
RAMON REYES, APPELLANT
v.
STORAGE & PROCESSORS, INC. AND LEONEL GUERRERO, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 165th Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 96-52431
Before Grant, Ross and Cornelius*fn1, JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Cornelius
OPINION
Ramon Reyes brought suit against Storage & Processors, Inc. ("S&P;) and a co-worker, Leonel Guerrero (collectively "Appellees"), alleging they negligently caused him to suffer a workplace injury. On appeal, Reyes challenges the propriety of a summary judgment the trial court granted in favor of the Appellees. For reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for trial.
Reyes worked as a forklift operator for S&P; The company was a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, but it provided an optional Accident Employee Welfare Benefit Plan ("the Benefit Plan") for its employees. When Reyes began his employment with S&P; he signed a document, written in Spanish, stating that he had read and understood the rules and stipulations of the benefit plan and, four days later, he signed the benefit plan agreement itself. The agreement provided that in the event an employee suffered a work-related illness or injury, that employee would waive any potential common law claims against S&P;or any of its employees or agents, and would have for his sole relief only the specified benefits provided by the benefit plan. In the course of his employment, Reyes was severely injured when Leonel Guerrero, a co-worker, severed Reyes' foot by driving over it with a forklift. Reyes subsequently sued S&P;and Guerrero to recover damages caused by their negligence. S&P;and Guerrero separately moved for summary judgment, each contending that Reyes had waived his common-law claims pursuant to the benefit plan, had ratified that waiver by accepting and retaining benefits under S&P;s benefit plan, and was estopped from contending otherwise by his acceptance of such benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment against Reyes, and Reyes appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
The appeals court agreed with S&P;s and Guerrero's waiver, ratification, and estoppel arguments. See Reyes v. Storage & Processor, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 722, 725-26 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, pet. denied). The court, however, found that the benefit plan agreement between Reyes and S&P;was void as contrary to public policy because it essentially enabled S&P;to enjoy the advantage of subscriber status, i.e., limited liability, without providing at least subscriber-level benefits in return, thus effectively thwarting the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the workers' compensation statutory system. See id. at 729. However, in Lawrence v. CDB Servs., Inc., 44 S.W.3d 544, 551-53 (Tex. 2001), the Texas Supreme Court disapproved the public policy analysis employed by the Fourth Court of Appeals, finding fault with its substantive plan-by-plan comparison of respective benefits. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that agreements like S&P;s benefit plan are enforceable, absent any claim of fraud, duress, accident, mistake, or failure or inadequacy of consideration. See id. at 553. After the decision in Lawrence, S&P;and Guerrero collectively filed another motion for summary judgment on the same bases as their original summary judgment motions, i.e., waiver, ratification, and estoppel. The trial court granted the motion, whi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|