Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Owens v. Rockwood Insurance
Citations: 430 So. 2d 156; 1983 La. App. LEXIS 8146Docket: No. 15249-CA
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 27, 1983; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The plaintiff appeals a trial court decision that denied workmen’s compensation benefits from Rockwood Insurance Company, the sole defendant. The case stems from a severe injury the plaintiff sustained in a head-on collision while driving his mother’s Ford Ranchero to service one of her oil wells on September 15, 1980. The plaintiff had been working for his mother, June Owens, since 1978, primarily servicing her oil wells and occasionally assisting with her flooring business, Royale Floors, which began operations in early 1980. The flooring and decorating businesses, though operated separately, were evolving into a single enterprise around the time of the accident. Mrs. Owens applied for a workmen's compensation policy in the name of "June Owens and James E. Roy d/b/a Royale Floors," with the policy issued on April 17, 1980. The premium was paid from the Royale Floors account. Subsequent to the accident, after a partnership dispute, Mr. Roy was removed from the policy. The plaintiff contends he is covered under the Rockwood policy, referencing LSA-R.S. 23:1162 and the case Dobson v. Standard Accident Insurance Company, which he argues supports his claim for coverage. LSA-R.S. 23:1162 mandates that insurance policies against liability must ensure prompt payment of compensation and cover the employer's entire liability, emphasizing that the insurer's obligations are direct and enforceable by the entitled person. An employer engaged in multiple distinct businesses may secure separate worker's compensation insurance policies for each business. Policies must include a clause stating that any notice or knowledge of an injury by the insured is also attributed to the insurer. The insurer has subrogation rights to the employer's claims under relevant statutes. In this case, the plaintiff's employer insured only employees of Royale Floors, excluding those in the oil field operations, which were managed separately with distinct accounts and business objectives. The plaintiff, employed by his mother for oil field work, was injured while servicing equipment unrelated to Royale Floors. Despite the plaintiff's argument referencing a similar case, the court found it inapplicable due to the distinct nature of the employer's businesses. Consequently, the court ruled that the worker's compensation policy did not cover the plaintiff's claim, affirming the trial court's judgment.