Court Opinion

ID: 9762898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:33:40.012944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.337139
License: Public Domain

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the judgment should be affirmed, but I do so for different reasons than those stated in the majority opinion.
I cannot agree that merely advising the jury that the plaintiffs employer is a nonsub-scriber under the workers’ compensation law is improper. In the only two cases that have considered this question, the courts opined that it was not improper to do so unless the reference is used as an argument for the jury to punish the employer for failing to subscribe to the law or to overcompensate the plaintiff because she has not received collateral benefits that other workers customarily receive. Irvan v. Frozen Food Express, Inc., 780 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir.1986); Scottino v. Ledbetter, 56 S.W.2d 282, 284 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1933, no writ). Moreover, the fact that the employer is not a subscriber under the workers’ compensation law is one of the facts a plaintiff may properly plead and prove in order to successfully sue the employer under common-law negligence principles. See Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306, § 4 (current version found at Tex.Labor Code Ann. § 406.033) (Vernon 1994); Pullman Co. v. Ransaw, 254 S.W. 763 (Tex.Comm’n App. 1923, opinion adopted); Phipps v. Evans, 255 S.W.2d 893, 897 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco), rev’d on other grounds, 152 Tex. 487, 259 S.W.2d 723 (1953); Eisenberg v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 169 S.W.2d 221, 222 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1943, no writ); Railway Express Agency v. Bannister, 46 S.W.2d 372, 373 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1932, no writ); Great West Mill & Elevator Co. v. Hess, 281 S.W. 234, 237 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1926, no writ); Breckenridge Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Hutchens, 260 S.W. 684, 686 (Tex.Civ.App—San Antonio 1924, writ dism’d). Love did plead such fact, and Nu-Way did not except to the pleading.1 It cannot be improper to inform the jury of a fact that constitutes a proper item of proof in the plaintiffs case.
The authorities cited in the majority opinion and relied upon by Nu-Way are not in point. Rule 411 of the Texas Rules of Civil Evidence prohibits the admission of evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability on the issue of whether he acted negligently. The reference in this case was not about insurance, and it was not made in an attempt to show that the employer was negligent. The cases cited and relied on by Nu-Way involve statements or evidence intended to show that a defendant is insured against liability. The statement in this case did not do that. The policy behind the rule against evidence of liability insurance is to avoid a jury’s awarding damages against a defendant when they know the defendant will not be required to pay the judgment. That knowledge sometimes produces damage verdicts that are improper or unjustified. No such policy is involved with a reference such as that made in this case.
I agree that Nu-Way has shown no harm from the statement by Love’s attorney, but I cannot agree that the statement, standing alone and without additional prejudicial comments, was improper in any sense.

. Nu-Way did file a motion in limine to exclude mention of such fact, but the trial court overruled it as to that fact.