PJC General Negligence 2022

PJC 16.5

W ORKERS ’ C OMPENSATION —E MPLOYMENT

PJC 16.5

Employer with More Than One Business—Question

QUESTION ______ Was Paul Payne performing services for ABC Company in its automobile repair business at the time of the injury? An employee cannot be performing services for more than one business at the time of the injury. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. PJC 16.5 should be used if the employer operates two or more sep arate and distinct businesses, one that is covered by workers’ compensation and one that is not, and if the worker has been shown in answer to PJC 16.1 to be an employee of that employer. The inquiry is whether the worker at the time of injury was perform ing services in the business not found to be the employer by the appeals panel. If there is a dispute about whether the employer’s businesses are separate and dis tinct and only one of the businesses is covered by workers’ compensation, the follow ing question should be submitted in addition to PJC 16.5: At the time of any injury to Paul Payne , did ABC Company oper ate its automobile repair business separately and distinctly from its mercantile business ? Burden of proof. The burden of proof should be placed appropriately in accor dance with the decision of the appeals panel. See PJC 15.1. Source of questions. An employer cannot cover some of his employees with workers’ compensation insurance and leave others uncovered in the same general business or enterprise. Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados , 358 S.W.3d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 2012); Barron v. Standard Accident Insurance Co. , 53 S.W.2d 769, 770 (Tex. 1932). If he has two or more separate and distinct businesses, however, he may obtain coverage for one business but not for the others. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Jones , 327 S.W.2d 441, 443 (Tex. 1959); see also Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund v. DEL Industrial, Inc. , 35 S.W.3d 591, 595 (Tex. 2000); Bradley v. Phillips Chemical Co. , 484 F. Supp. 2d 604, 615 (S.D. Tex. 2007). Whether the businesses are in fact separate and distinct may be a question of fact. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Sulli van , 334 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. 1960). In light of these authorities, one or more of the above questions may be appropriate.

236