Opinion ID: 2833985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether a “Written Agreement” Exists Under the Act

Text: As a threshold matter, Summers argues that Entergy failed to satisfy section 406.123’s requirement that the general contractor (Entergy) and subcontractor (IMC) execute a written agreement under which Entergy would provide workers’ compensation coverage. Entergy counters that a reference to “O.P.I.P. wage rates” in a “Blanket Contract Order” sent to IMC constitutes the requisite agreement because this acronym refers to “owner provided insurance program.” Summers’s “no written agreement” argument was not raised in the trial court as a ground for denying summary judgment. Thus, Summers has waived this argument. [8] The sole remaining question is whether Entergy is a “general contractor” and thus a deemed employer under the Labor Code.