Hazelwood v. Mandrell Industries Co., Ltd., 17551

• Decision Date: 31 January 1980
• Docket Number: No. 17551,17551
• Parties: Androniky HAZELWOOD et al., Appellants, v. MANDRELL INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., Appellee. (1st Dist.)
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 204

596 S.W.2d 204

Androniky HAZELWOOD et al., Appellants, v. MANDRELL INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., Appellee.

No. 17551.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Jan. 31, 1980.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1980.

Helm, Pletcher, Hogan & Burrow, Richard P. Hogan, Houston, for appellants.

Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, Ted C. Litton, Houston, for appellee.

Before PEDEN, EVANS and WARREN, JJ.

EVANS, Justice.

The principal question in this wrongful death action is whether an employment contract limiting an employer's liability for industrial injuries and death is void as against public policy.

The employee, William P. Hazelwood, executed an employment contract on June 19, 1973 with Mandrell Industries Co., Ltd. at Houston, Texas. This contract contains a paragraph entitled "Industrial Injuries" which provides as follows:

"Industrial injuries and death resulting therefrom, including occupational accidents and diseases, arising out of and in the course of your employment will be covered to the limits provided by the industrial compensation laws of the State of Texas and such compensation provision shall be the limit of our liability to yourself or your dependents in the event of a claim by you against the Company for personal injuries, you will submit to examination by a physician or physicians of the Company's selection as often as may be requested, and upon any refusal to do so within ten days after such request by the Company, the claim shall be deemed waived."

In May 1973, Mr. Hazelwood died while working for Mandrell in Africa, and Hazelwood's widow, acting individually and as representative for his estate and minor survivors, brought this wrongful death action against Mandrell.

Prior to a trial on the merits, Mandrell filed a motion for judgment, requesting that the court limit the plaintiff's recovery to the amounts provided under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, Article 8306, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. The trial court granted Mandrell's motion and entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $21,258.73, representing the amount of compensation provided by the Act. The plaintiffs bring this appeal.

In two points of error the plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in limiting their recovery to that provided under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act because the contractual provision is (1) in violation of public policy since it did not require Mandrell to waive its common law defenses and (2) because it was unenforceable as a contract of adhesion due to its one-sided nature and the superior bargaining power of Mandrell.

Voluntary employment contracts providing, in effect, that an employee's recovery for industrial injuries sustained while working for a nonsubscribing employer shall be determined by the measure of benefits provided by the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, have been held valid and enforceable by several courts in this State. Tigrett v. Heritage Bldg. Company, 533 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1976, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Employers Mutual Casualty Company v. Poorman, 428 S.W.2d 698 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1968, writ ref'd n. r. e.); United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Valdez, 390 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston 1965, writ ref'd n. r. e.). However, it does not appear from the decisions in those cases whether the employment contracts there involved provided that the nonsubscribing employers waived their common law defenses.

At the time of Hazelwood's death, the Texas Worker's Compensation Act did not extend coverage to out-of-state employees, and it is Mandrell's contention that the contractual provision is actually in furtherance of the public good since it extended the Act's coverage to an employee who otherwise would not have enjoyed the certainty of the measure of recovery...