 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pruitt v. United Chester Industries8/28/2000
Appellant Kenneth Pruitt appeals a summary judgment in favor of United Chester Industries, Inc. (United), The Home Insurance Co. (Home), and Highlands Insurance Co. (Highlands). In this bad-faith workers' compensation case, Pruitt brings two points of error arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to:
(1) Home and Highlands for breach of a duty of good faith for failing to timely and properly investigate appellant's claim; and (2) United for breach of fiduciary duty for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Background
Kenneth Pruitt was injured on March 3, 1995 in a fall from a piece of equipment while performing welding services for Halliburton Energy Services (Halliburton). He was a regular employee of United, but was on loan to Halliburton through an agreement between United and Halliburton.
Halliburton's employees filled out an accident report on the date of the accident. That day Pruitt informed the vice-president of United, David Osborne, that he had been injured. However, Pruitt told Osborne he would "rest up" over the weekend to see how he felt. Although Pruitt thought he may have had broken ribs, he did not think a doctor could do anything for him.
Over the next three weeks, Pruitt continued to work at United. He then left the employ of United and began work for Ingersoll-Rand (Ingersoll). He passed Ingersoll's physical but claimed it was painful. On the second day of work, while using an impact wrench, Pruitt experienced extreme pain in his left shoulder. A doctor determined Pruitt had a torn rotator cuff and there was evidence the injury occurred during the fall at Halliburton. Pruitt was informed he would need surgery and rehabilitation.
In June 1995 Pruitt notified both United and Halliburton of the injury. That same month, United advised its workers' compensation carrier, Home, and Halliburton told Pruitt it would inform its carrier, Highlands.
Additionally, in July Pruitt filed a claim with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC). During processing of the claim, a question arose as to whether Pruitt was a "borrowed servant" of Halliburton's at the time of the incident. The TWCC ultimately determined Halliburton to be Pruitt's employer for purposes of the March 3, 1995 injury. After the final determination was made on appeal to TWCC in October of 1996, Halliburton's compensation carrier, Highlands, paid Pruitt's claim.
Summary Judgment
In his first and second points of error, Pruitt contends the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of United; its workers' compensation carrier, Home; and Halliburton's carrier, Highlands. The movant for summary judgment must show there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Randall's Food Mkts., Inc. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex. 1995). A defendant who conclusively negates at least one of the essential elements of a cause of action is entitled to summary judgment on that cause of action. Id. Likewise, a defendant who conclusively establishes each element of an affirmative defense is entitled to summary judgment. Id.
Once the movant has established a right to a summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-movant. Marchal v. Webb, 859 S.W.2d 408, 412 (Tex. App._Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). The non-movant must respond to the motion for summary judgment and present to the trial court any issues that would preclude summary judgment. See City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|