Hanover Ins. Co. v. Holleman

3 Citing cases

  1. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. Berry

    350 F.2d 49 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    Aetna tendered the premium paid for Berry under the 1961 policy as a refund after his death. While it is true that the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act excludes from the definition of "employee" for whom the benefits of the Act flow mandatorily, the president and other officers of a corporation, insurance companies may afford voluntary coverage to a corporate officer if the contract of insurance or other contractual basis so provides. Superior Ins. Co. v. Kling, 1959, 160 Tex. 155, 327 S.W.2d 422; Houston Fire Cas. Ins. Co. v. Parker, Tex.Civ.App. writ ref'd n.r.e., 1960, 341 S.W.2d 495; Hanover Ins. Co. v. Holleman, Tex.Civ. App. writ ref'd n.r.e., 1963, 372 S.W.2d 554. Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8309, § 1a.

  2. City of Lubbock v. Elkins

    896 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. App. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    Therefore, a plea of estoppel cannot be used for the purpose of enabling the Commission to acquire jurisdiction where no jurisdiction in fact exists. Cf. Hanover Insurance Company v. Holleman, 372 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1963, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (estoppel plea does not provide jurisdiction to Industrial Accident Board over a compensation case where no jurisdiction exists). Based upon our determination that the Commission had no jurisdiction over appellee's appeal as a result of the untimely filing of his notice of appeal, we find the trial court erred in finding that the Commission and the City were estopped from denying the timeliness of appellee's appeal, the effect of which would allow jurisdiction where none existed.

  3. Employers Casualty Co. v. American Employers Insurance Co.

    397 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965)   Cited 10 times

    This question involves the manner of direction and control exerted over Meathenia by the employers. The special or borrowed employee principle is applicable in workmen's compensation cases as well as in common law cases involving personal injuries to servants or employees. Insurors Indemnity Inc. Co. v. Pridgen, 148 Tex. 219, 223 S.W.2d 217; Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Baker (Tex.Civ.App.), 278 S.W.2d 419; Hanover Ins. Co. v. Holleman (Tex.Civ.App.), 372 S.W.2d 554, (Refused, NRE); Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Neely (Tex.Civ.App.), 189 S.W.2d 626. When the question whether an employee is a general or special employee is raised, the determination hinges on the authority and control over that employee under the facts of the particular case.