Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Petitioner v. John Summers, Respondent

Summary

On rehearing, the Texas Supreme Court held that a premises owner may act as its own 'general contractor' under Labor Code section 406.121(1) and, having agreed in writing to provide workers' compensation coverage for its contractor's employees, is entitled to the Act's exclusive-remedy defense as a statutory employer. Applying the plain-meaning rule, the Court reasoned that the statutory definition — a person who 'undertakes to procure the performance of work or a service, either separately or through the use of subcontractors' — encompasses premises owners, that the 1989 deletion of 'contracted with another party' from the subcontractor definition reinforces that reading, and that failed bills and post-enactment legislator statements are not statutory history. Because Entergy satisfied the written-agreement requirement of section 406.123(a) and met the general-contractor definition, the Court reversed the court of appeals and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Entergy. Justice Hecht and Justice Willett each wrote concurrences agreeing with the result — Hecht deeming the text ambiguous and resolving it by the Act's pro-coverage context, Willett resting solely on the enacted text — while Justice O'Neill, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson and Justice Medina, dissented, arguing the Legislature tied 'general contractor' to terms commonly understood to mean one who contracts with an owner.