Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Frozen Food Exp.
Decision Date | 21 January 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 10077,10077 |
Citation | 255 S.W.2d 378 |
Parties | TRADERS & GEN. INS. CO. v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Thompson & Coe, Will C. Thompson, Vernon Coe, W. S. Barron, Jr., by Vernon Coe, all of Dallas, for appellant.
Phinney, Hallman, Reed & Holley, Carl L. Phinney, Leroy Hallman and Pat Reed, by Leroy Hallman, all of Dallas, for appellee.
Traders and General Insurance Company, appellant, brought this suit against appellee, Frozen Food Express, a corporation, to recover premiums alleged to be due it under workmen's compensation insurance policies issued by appellant to appellee.
Premiums under such policies, generally speaking, are calculated on the remuneration paid employees of the insured.
Basically the issue here is whether certain truck drivers and their helpers are as a matter of fact employees of the insured or as a matter of law are to be considered as such employees by reason of application of section 6, Article 8307, V.A.C.S.
Appellee's defense to this suit is primarily that such truck drivers and their helpers were not its employees but were employees of an independent contractor and, in any event, appellant was estopped to contend otherwise.
Appellee's principal business is that of transporting frozen foods in trucks for others for compensation.
Such trucks are leased by appellee under written agreements which are in the following form:
'Frozen Food Express
'1. ________ (Name of Owner of Automotive Equipment), hereinafter termed the lessor, hereby leases and delivers complete possession and control to Frozen Food Express of the following equipment.
'Truck or tractor
(Form requires detailed description)
Semi-trailer
(Form requires detailed description)
'Basis of Compensation
'Basis: ________
'Date _____ Lessor _____
'Frozen Food Express (A Corporation)
'Address ________
'Terminal __ Town _____ State ___
'By _____ Telephone _____'
Under such lease lessor received 70% and lessee 30% of the gross income of the trucks.
Concerning the operation of the business of Frozen Foods its President testified:
'A. Our operation is based on the handling of perishables, primarily low temperature perishables such as frozen foods, shrimp, fish, frozen meats, frozen eggs; and then we handle a lot of perishables over what we classify light refrigerator commodity nature, like cheese, fresh meats, oleomargarine, butter, items of that kind. We operate between primarily the Texas area on the one hand, and all of the states in the middle west on the other; secondarily between Texas on the one hand, and California on the other; and then to a lesser extent from Texas on one hand, to the Eastern Seaboard states on the other. We transport-now the standpoint of day-to-day operation, our operation is conducted in this manner: The shippers call us for movement of merchandise and we dispatch trucks, load it-it's loaded primarily at warehouse points, packing points, and goes primarily to warehouse points and packing points at the destination.
'Q. Now the Interstate Commerce Commission requires the driver and the equipment to be under the control of the person under whose permit they are carrying, does it not? A. The Interstate Commerce Commission requires that the equipment be under the control of the party who has the permit.
'Q. (By Mr. Coe) Now, the trucks which operated for you under such a lease agreement were to be operated exclusively for you, is that not correct, during the terms of the lease contract? A. They were exclusively under lease to Frozen Food Express, yes, sir.
'Q. And the only people for whom they were to haul, other than Frozen Food Express, were such persons as you might authorize them to haul for, during the term of that lease? By 'person whom you might authorize them to haul for' I mean on through hauls you had associated companies who would take over the supervision and control of the equipment and the driver. A. We were operating under the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and such hauls as we were authorized to make under that authority or in connection with that authority were the only hauls that they were authorized to make under that lease.
'Q. Now, as far as the permit to haul is concerned, that was your responsibility? A. That's correct, sir.
'Q. And these trucks all operated under your carrier's permit? A. That's correct, sir.
'Q. Now, with reference to fines, despite this provision in here you actually, as I understand it, had the men pay their speeding fines and violations of that sort, but for overloading you split that on the same basis as you did the commission? A. That's right, sir.
'Q. Now, all of these trucks operating under this type of agreement were required by you to have two operators, were they not? A. Yes, sir.
'Q. How do you term those, a driver and a helper, or were they both drivers, or what is your terminology for them? A. Well, they are usually referred to as the operator and his swamper.
'Q. Now before a man could drive one of those trucks under your permit, and under one of those lease contracts, you uniformly required of them that they have a doctor's examination, did you not? A. That was required under the Interstate Commerce Commission rules and regulations, Mr. Coe, and we uniformly required it due to those regulations.
'Q. In other words, you required that yourself, of the driver, because the Interstate Commerce regulations required it of an operator under a carrier's permit such as you had? A. That's right.
'Q. Now, you also required them to make a log of their trip, did you not? A. That's right, sir.
'Q. And you required them to report to the branch office nearest them when they completed a load, did you not? In other words, when they completed delivery of a load, they were required to report to the nearest branch office, were they not? A. They weren't required to, but as a matter of practice it was-in other words, to be available to load their equipment why they would have to check in to the office notify them that they were ready.
'Q. All right. A. The term 'require' that you use there is the product of custom. In other words you couldn't load a piece of equipment until you knew it was ready to go, and you didn't know it was ready to go until you had information to that effect.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Crist
...874 (Tex.Civ.App.1975); Associated Employers Lloyds v. Dillingham, 262 S.W.2d 544 (Tex.Civ.App.1953); Traders and General Ins. Co. v. Frozen Food Express, 255 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Civ.App.1953); Brown and Root v. Traders and General Ins. Co., 135 S.W.2d 534 (Tex.Civ.App. In any event, the court ......
-
Associated Emp. Lloyds v. Dillingham
...General Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 534; English Freight Co. v. Knox, Tex.Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 633; Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Frozen Food Express, Tex.Civ.App., 255 S.W.2d 378, refused n. r. e.; Steele v. General Mills, Inc., 329 U.S. 433, 67 S.Ct. 439, 91 L.Ed. 402; Texas Employers......
-
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Txex Energy Invs.
...Lloyds v. Dillingham, 262 S.W.2d 544 (Tex. Civ. App.-Fort Worth 1953, writ ref.); Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Frozen Food Express, 255 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1953, writ ref. n.r.e.); Brown & Root, Inc. v. Traders & General Ins. Co., 135 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Civ. App.-Galveston 1939, w......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Arnold
...of Fleming's as well as appellee's work, from which it must follow that they were both employees of Shamrock. Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Frozen Food Express, 255 S.W.2d 378, err. ref. n. r. e.; Wardlow v. Newberry, Tex.Civ.App., 319 S.W.2d 437, no writ hist. Accordingly, the second and t......