Opinion ID: 176580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Cargill's Insurance Policy

Text: Espinoza argues that Cargill failed to demonstrate that it purchased a Workers' Compensation insurance policy. Cargill responds that it provided sufficient evidence, including (1) the affidavit of Cargill's Vice President Brenda Smith-Pirkle, who stated that Cargill's predecessor Excel became a Workers' Compensation subscriber in 2002, and provided coverage at the Friona plant; (2) the affidavit of the Friona Plant's Human Resources Manager, Margaret Renteria, who stated that Cargill provides Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for employees who desire it, as well as Plan coverage for those who do not [2] ; (3) Espinoza's signed waiver of Workers' Compensation insurance coverage, which states that she reviewed the written Notice dated APRIL 15, 2002, that Excel now provides Workers' Compensation Insurance; and (4) Workers' Compensation insurance policy excerpts, which reference Cargill, Incorporated rather than Cargill Meat Solutions Inc., and which Cargill concedes do not specifically show that Cargill insured the workers at its Friona Plant. Espinoza challenges the sufficiency of this evidence and argues that no one at Cargill ever informed her that Cargill offered Workers' Compensation insurance coverage or explained Workers' Compensation to her. Espinoza relies on Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., in which a Texas Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer because the employer failed to provide evidence that it covered its employees under a Workers' Compensation policy. 183 S.W.3d 469, 473 (Tex.App.Eastland 2005, no pet.). In that case, a temporary employee sued his staffing company and his temporary employer, Martin Resources, Inc., for negligence, after injuring his hand. Id. at 470. Martin Resources, Inc. submitted (1) an affidavit of an underwriting specialist with an insurance company stating that during the time in question, Martins Resources, Inc. had Workers' Compensation insurance coverage; (2) an affidavit from a Martin Resources, Inc. plant manager which stated that Martin Resources, Inc. had Workers' Compensation insurance coverage when the employee injured his hand; and (3) a Workers' Compensation insurance policy, which insured Martin Resource Management Corporation, rather than Martin Resources, Inc. Id. at 473. The Morales court found that, [i]n the absence of any evidence explaining the relationship, if any, among these entities, the insurance policy presented by Martin Resources, Inc. created a fact issue as to whether Martin Resources, Inc. had workers' compensation insurance. Id. As such, Martin Resources, Inc. failed to meet its summary judgment burden of establishing that it was covered by workers compensation insurance coverage at the time of Morales's injury. Id. In response, Cargill directs us to Esquivel v. Mapelli Meat Packing Co., in which another Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a case where an employee challenged the existence of the employer's Workers' Compensation plan. 932 S.W.2d 612, 613-14 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1996, writ denied). To prove coverage, the employer submitted an affidavit of a manager, which stated that at the time of the employee's injury, the employer's Workers' Compensation plan was in full force and effect; as well as an affidavit of an employee of the insurance company that underwrote the Workers' Compensation policy, stating that the employer was a subscriber. Id. at 615, 616-17. Because the employee did not point out, nor did the Esquivel court find, other evidence that controvert[ed] the factual assertions contained in the employer's affidavits, the Esquivel court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. Id. at 617. We find Esquivel more analogous to this case. The Morales court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Martin Resources, Inc., citing existing fact issues. See 183 S.W.3d at 473. This implies that the employee in Morales offered proof that countered the affidavits produced by Martin Resources, Inc. In contrast, Espinoza has not provided any evidence to counter the Smith-Perkle or Renteria affidavits, other than her assertion that no one from Cargill ever explained Workers' Compensation to her or informed her of its existence. Espinoza's lack of knowledge, however, cannot suffice to create a fact issue as to whether Cargill offered Workers' Compensation protection to its employees. [3] We thus find that Cargill provided sufficient evidence to conclude, as a matter of law, that Cargill had Workers' Compensation insurance.