remedies defense in Texas

2019Wingfoot Enterprises v. Alvarado, 111 S.W.3d 134, 140 (Tex. 2003)(“[W]e conclude that the Act’s decided bias in favor of employers electing to provide coverage for their employees supports our conclusion that the Act permits more than one employer for workers’ compensation purposes.”): see also Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tex. 2005)(stating that client company could assert exclusive-remedy defense to claims by temporary employee if it was covered by workers’ 4 The sole exception to the exclusive remedy provision is for an employee’s death “caused by an intentional act o

2019In Wingfoot Enterprises v. Alvarado, for instance, an injured worker sued both his employee leasing company and its client company following the worker’s on-the-job-injury. 111 S.W.3d 134, 135 (Tex. 2003).

2006Girl, 673 N.W.2d at 75 (clarifying "economic loss" doctrine is a remedies principle which determines whether a loss can be recovered in tort or in contract; it does not determine coverage under an insurance policy which depends instead upon the policy language).

2006Girl, 673 N.W.2d at 75 (clarifying “economic loss” doctrine is a remedies principle which determines whether a loss can be recovered in tort or in contract; it does not determine coverage under an insurance policy which depends instead upon the policy language).

2019Wingfoot Enterprises v. Alvarado, 111 S.W.3d 134, 140 (Tex. 2003)(“[W]e conclude that the Act’s decided bias in favor of employers electing to provide coverage for their employees supports our conclusion that the Act permits more than one employer for workers’ compensation purposes.”): see also Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc., 161 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tex. 2005)(stating that client company could assert exclusive-remedy defense to claims by temporary employee if it was covered by workers’ 4 The sole exception to the exclusive remedy provision is for an employee’s death “caused by an intentional act o