Explore the Texas court’s decision denying workers’ compensation to an injured police escort officer, highlighting legal implications.
The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision to deny workers’ compensation benefits to a reserve police officer injured while escorting an oversized load for a heavy hauling company. In the case of Anderson v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co., No. 14-23-00942-CV, dated March 25, 2025, the appellate court supported a trial court’s take-nothing judgment against Marcus W. Anderson. Anderson suffered injuries in a traffic accident while working as a motorcycle police escort for Hansa Meyer Heavy Hauling & Rigging USA, LLC. The court concurred that Anderson was not a deemed employee under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, allowing Texas Mutual Insurance Company to justifiably deny his claim.
Anderson, a commissioned reserve police officer with the Galena Park Police Department, also runs a business offering uniformed motorcycle police escort services to private entities including funeral homes, athletic teams, and trucking companies. The work, requiring a licensed peace officer, is executed using his own police motorcycle and gear, and he receives direct payments from clients, such as a $1,200 daily rate in this case, while managing his own income taxes.
In this instance, Hansa Meyer, a registered Texas motor carrier specializing in oversized load transportation, needed to move a demethanizer tower from Baytown, Texas, to Pierce, Colorado. Typically, Hansa Meyer employs Deputy J.R. Case from the Waller County Sheriff’s Department to organize police escorts. However, Case was unavailable, so Anderson was recommended instead.
Anderson agreed to perform the escort from Baytown to Perryton, Texas, without the need for an application, contract, or training. Hansa Meyer provided a radio for coordination but did not control Anderson’s escort methods. He wore his own police uniform and used his personal marked motorcycle.
After sustaining injuries during the escort, Anderson filed a workers’ compensation claim under Hansa Meyer’s policy with Texas Mutual, which denied the claim, citing Anderson as an independent contractor rather than an employee. Anderson bypassed the benefit-review conference and moved directly to a contested case hearing, where the administrative law judge ruled against him. The Division of Workers’ Compensation appeals panel upheld this decision, and subsequently, the district court ruled in favor of Texas Mutual.
On appeal, Anderson contended he should be regarded as a “deemed employee” under the Texas Labor Code § 406.123(b), which states: “If a general contractor has workers’ compensation insurance… and enters into a contract with a subcontractor who does not have employees, the general contractor shall be treated as the employer of the subcontractor.” To succeed, Anderson had to prove Hansa Meyer was a general contractor per § 406.121(1) and that he was a subcontractor performing part of the general contractor’s work.
However, the appellate court determined Hansa Meyer was a motor carrier, and the Labor Code excludes motor carriers using owner operators from the “general contractor” definition: “The term [general contractor] does not include a motor carrier that provides a transportation service through the use of an owner operator.” — Tex. Lab. Code § 406.121(1)
The court identified Anderson as an “owner operator” per § 406.121(4), defining such an individual as a person “providing transportation services under contract for a motor carrier. An owner operator is an independent contractor.” Although Anderson argued that Hansa Meyer’s use of its own trucks and employees should exclude it from this statutory exception, the court disagreed, asserting that the presence of even one owner operator—Anderson himself—was enough to activate the exclusion. Accordingly, Hansa Meyer was not a general contractor, and Anderson was neither a subcontractor nor a deemed employee under § 406.123(b).
The court also supported the trial court’s conclusion that Anderson was an independent contractor under § 406.121(2) and Texas case law, noting that: According to § 406.122(c), an independent contractor working for a motor carrier is not viewed as an employee unless there is a written agreement to extend workers’ compensation coverage, which was absent in this situation. Given Hansa Meyer was a motor carrier using an owner operator, and Anderson acted as an independent contractor without a written coverage agreement, the court determined he was not entitled to benefits under the Texas Mutual Insurance policy.
Yorum Yap