Massey v. Armco Steel Co.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. C-1406,C-1406 |
| Citation | 652 S.W.2d 932 |
| Parties | Leroy MASSEY, Petitioner, v. ARMCO STEEL COMPANY and Ray Lambright, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Fortson, Frazer & O'Neil, Norman W. O'Neil, Jr., Krist, Gunn, Weller, Neumann & Morrison, Harvill E. Weller, Jr., Houston, for petitioner.
Vinson & Elkins, Gay C. Brinson, Jr. and Brock C. Akers, Houston, for respondents.
This is a workers' compensation case in which we must determine whether an employee's counterclaim against his employer for an intentional tort stated a cause of action that was independent of his claim for which the Industrial Accident Board awarded benefits. The court of appeals, with one judge dissenting, affirmed a summary judgment against the employee on the grounds that the workers' compensation award was his exclusive remedy. 635 S.W.2d 596. We reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the trial court.
The Texas Industrial Accident Board awarded Leroy Massey total and permanent compensation for an injury he received while working for Armco Steel Company. American General Fire and Casualty Company elected to appeal the award to the district court. Massey answered and filed a counterclaim alleging three causes of action against American General and its employee, James Sansing, and Armco and its agent, Ray Lambright. In his first cause of action, Massey asserted his right to recover against American General under the workers' compensation insurance policy. In his second and third causes of action, Massey joined Armco, Lambright and Sansing claiming that they conspired to interfere with the settlement of his compensation claim. Massey alleged a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing owed under the contract of insurance and sought damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Armco's special exception to Massey's counterclaim and his motion for summary judgment urged that Massey's cause of action against Armco was barred by section 3, article 8306, of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated. The trial court did not rule on the special exception, but granted a summary judgment grounded upon the recited reason that an award for compensation was Massey's exclusive remedy. We are not here concerned with the merits of Massey's claim for compensation, that having been severed into a separate cause. Massey urges that his action against Armco and Lambright was for an intentional tort which he did not waive by pursuing his rights to compensation. He says that the tort arose after the injury.
Although the Workers' Compensation Act bars an employee's common law action for negligence against his employer, the Act does not exempt employers from common law liability for intentional torts. Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 610 S.W.2d 736, 739 (Tex.1980); Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co., 108 Tex. 96, 185 S.W. 556, 560 (1916). An employee, however, may waive his cause of action for intentional tort if he seeks benefits under the Act. Grove Manufacturing Co. v. Cardinal Construction Co., 534 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Jones v. Jeffreys, 244 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1951, writ ref'd). The collection of workers' compensation benefits by an employee who subsequently alleges his injury was by intentional tort constitutes an election of remedies and estops the employee from proceeding to recover damages outside the Act. Porter v. Downing, 578 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
We agree with Massey's general premise that an employee may have one claim against his employer under the Workers' Compensation Act and a claim at common law for intentional tort. Since such claims are mutually exclusive,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macquarie Americas Corp.. v. Knickel
...v. Freeland, 589 N.W.2d 551, 560 (N.D.1999) (quoting Burr v. Kulas, 564 N.W.2d 631, 637 n. 3 (N.D.1997)); accord Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex.1983). The major difference between a criminal conspiracy and a civil conspiracy is that in a civil conspiracy damages, and no......
-
Pebble Beach Co. v. Tour 18 I, Ltd.
...by two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means. Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex.1983). The evidence in the case is insufficient to show a civil conspiracy. First, since the maps were not copyrighted at the tim......
-
Bennight v. Western Auto Supply Co., 13838
...injuries." By Cathy's settlement and compromise under the act, she is estopped from further recovery against Western Auto. Massey v. Armco Steel Company, 652 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.1983); Castleberry v. Goolsby Building Corporation, 617 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.1981); Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 610 S.W.2d 7......
-
Abdeljalil v. City of Fort Worth, 4:98-CV-342-A.
...or overt acts; and (5) resulting damages. Meineke Discount Muffler v. Jaynes, 999 F.2d 120, 124 (5th Cir.1993); Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex.1983); First State Bank v. Keilman, 851 S.W.2d 914, 925 (Tex.App. — Austin 1993, writ denied). A civil conspiracy "require[s] t......
-
5th Circuit Upholds Judgment for Conspiracy to Commit Fraud & Theft
...object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result.” Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 9234 (Tex. 1983) (citations omitted).” Id at *3. The 5th Circuit then stated that a party can be liable for conspiracy even if the party “di......
-
Discrimination claims under labor code chapter 451
...an election of remedies and estops the employee from proceeding to recover damages outside the Act.” Massey v. Armco Steel Co. , 652 S.W.2d 932, 933 (Tex. 1983). It is possible to bring a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act and simultaneously bring a claim for intentional tort, but be......
-
Other Workplace Torts
...remedy clause of the workers’ compensation statute. Medina v. Herrera , 927 S.W.2d 597, 600 (Tex. 1996); Massey v. Armco Steel Co ., 652 S.W.2d 932, 933 (Tex. 1983). Claims for gross or willful negligence do not constitute intentional torts that fall outside the exclusivity provision. In Ho......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...an election of remedies and estops the employee from proceeding to recover damages outside the Act.” Massey v. Armco Steel Co. , 652 S.W.2d 932, 933 (Tex. 1983). It is possible to bring a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act and simultaneously bring a claim for intentional tort, but be......
-
Discrimination Claims Under Labor Code Chapter 451
...an election of remedies and estops the employee from proceeding to recover damages outside the Act.” Massey v. Armco Steel Co. , 652 S.W.2d 932, 933 (Tex. 1983). It is possible to bring a claim under the Workers’ Compensation Act and simultaneously bring a claim for intentional tort, but be......