In addition to Greiner's exhibits showing workers' compensation insurance coverage that directly referenced Texas and some of Texas's Labor Code provisions, as well as providing the contact information for TDI and DWC, Odle attached Lyon's affidavit attesting to the benefits Lane had received under the policy. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c), (f); Guevara v. WCA Waste Corp., No. 01-15-01075-CV, 2017 WL 1483320, at *5 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) ("Waste Corp. and Gonzales were not required to produce the actual [workers' compensation] policy to prove Waste Corp. had coverage; they were permitted to prove Waste Corp.'s subscriber status with other evidence, such as affidavits."); Baker v. Cook Children's Physician Network, No. 2-07-174-CV, 2008 WL 553712,
In Guevara v. WCA Waste Corp. , Guevara sued defendant for negligence and after asserting affirmative defenses under the TWCA, defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction. No. 01-15-01075-CV, 2017 WL 1483320, at *1-*2 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, pet. dism'd)(mem. op.).
Troubling as this situation may be, I am neither free to stray from the Act, nor Texas Supreme Court precedent, and therefore concur in the decision of the Court. See e.g. AmeriGas Propane, L.P. v. Aboytes-Muniz, No. 09-18-00122-CV, 2019 WL 2127750, at *5 (Tex.App.--Beaumont May 16, 2019, pet. filed)(considering as one issue in permissive appeal whether temporary worker was employee of client company); Stevenson, 572 S.W.3d at 708 (concluding that fact issues precluded client company from claiming employer status for purposes of exclusive remedy defense); Guevara v. WCA Waste Corp., No. 01-15-01075-CV, 2017 WL 1483320, at *1 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, pet. dismissed) (not designated for publication); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Udell, No. 05-14-01042-CV, 2016 WL 4485573, at *6 (Tex.App.--Dallas Aug. 25, 2016, pet. denied)(finding temporary employee was the client company's employee, but only after a full trial on the merits). JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice December 4, 2019
Troubling as this situation may be, I am neither free to stray from the Act, nor Texas Supreme Court precedent, and therefore concur in the decision of the Court.See e.g. AmeriGas Propane, L.P. v. Aboytes-Muniz , No. 09-18-00122-CV, 2019 WL 2127750, at *5 (Tex.App.--Beaumont May 16, 2019, pet. filed) (considering as one issue in permissive appeal whether temporary worker was employee of client company); Stevenson , 572 S.W.3d at 708 (concluding that fact issues precluded client company from claiming employer status for purposes of exclusive remedy defense); Guevara v. WCA Waste Corp. , No. 01-15-01075-CV, 2017 WL 1483320, at *1 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, pet. dismissed) (not designated for publication); Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Udell , No. 05-14-01042-CV, 2016 WL 4485573, at *6 (Tex.App.--Dallas Aug. 25, 2016, pet. denied) (finding temporary employee was the client company's employee, but only after a full trial on the merits).
AmeriGas argues that a defendant may prove coverage under a workers' compensation policy with affidavits of coverage from an insurer, or a certificate of insurance, or an affidavit from the defendant itself. See, e.g., Guevara v. WCA Waste Corp. of Tex., L.P., No. 01-15-01075-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3650, at **12-14 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.) (explaining that the parties "were not required to produce the actual policy to prove [the employer] had coverage; they were permitted to prove [] subscriber status with other evidence, such as affidavits[]"); Warnke, 358 S.W.3d at 344 (concluding that an affidavit from an insurance carrier's managing director attesting to coverage satisfied the employer's burden to demonstrate subscriber status).
By failing to raise the issue in their response to Ron's motion to enforce, Ng and Wohlstein waived error. See Guevara v. WCA Waste Corp., No. 01-15-01075-CV, 2017 WL 1483320, at *6 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 25, 2017, pet. dism'd) (mem. op.). We overrule Ng and Wohlstein's first issue.