How the Court Ruled

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Horne v. XL Insurance America Inc., 2023 WL 3354317 (N.D. Miss. 05/10/23), in which the court ruled against the worker, finding that she did not allege that the company had a contractual duty or responsibility for the payment of workers' compensation benefits or for providing workers' compensation insurance.

Workers' Comp 101: An employee may be employed by more than one employer while doing the same work. The fact that only one of the employers pays the employee does not alter the fact that the employee was in the service of the non-paying employer and thus an employer-employee relationship would exist based on the element of control. See J.A. Biggart v. Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., 235 So. 2d 443 (Miss. 1970) (holding that because employee, paid by pipeline contractor, was also an employee of pipeline owner and company in charge of engineering and construction as agent for owner exclusive remedy for his heirs and dependents was under the Workmen's Compensation Act).

In fact, the court pointed out that the worker conceded that the company was not required to carry workers' compensation coverage for her.

"Therefore, a claim alleging a bad faith failure to pay workers' compensation benefits cannot be maintained against defendants who were not the [worker's] employer, not the employer's workers' compensation insurance provider, lacked the duty or authority to pay workers' compensation benefits, and did not decide to deny or delay [the worker's] workers' compensation benefits," the court wrote.

As a result, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the worker's case.

Share This Article: