Important New Court of Appeals Decision on Vehicle Owner-Operators as Independent Contractors
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals recently affirmed a take-nothing judgment in Anderson v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co., No. 14-23-00942-CV (Mar. 25, 2025), rejecting a claim for workers’ compensation benefits brought by Marcus W. Anderson. Anderson, a commissioned reserve officer with the Galena Park Police Department, provides motorcycle police escort services to private entities using his own motorcycle, equipment, and uniform. He charges clients directly, pays his own taxes, and operates independently.
The case arose from a demethanizer tower haul from Baytown, Texas, to Colorado. Hansa Meyer Heavy Hauling & Rigging USA, LLC, a motor carrier specializing in oversized loads, retained Anderson through a law enforcement contact to provide police escort services. Anderson had no written contract or formal employment relationship with Hansa Meyer, which provided only a radio for communication. He was injured in a collision while escorting the convoy on Highway 105 in Montgomery County and sought benefits under Hansa Meyer’s workers’ compensation policy with Texas Mutual. Texas Mutual denied the claim, asserting that Anderson was an independent contractor. That decision was upheld by a Division of Workers’ Compensation administrative law judge, affirmed by the appeals panel, and sustained after a bench trial in district court.
On appeal, Anderson argued that Hansa Meyer qualified as a “general contractor” under Texas Labor Code § 406.121(1) and that he was a subcontractor deemed an employee under § 406.123(b). The court disagreed, holding that Hansa Meyer was a motor carrier and therefore excluded from the “general contractor” definition under § 406.121(1), which specifically states that a motor carrier providing transportation services through the use of an owner-operator is not a general contractor. It was undisputed that Hansa Meyer provided transportation services and that Anderson contracted to perform a transportation-related function integral to the move. The court rejected Anderson’s argument that the owner-operator exclusion applies only to drivers of the load-bearing vehicles, concluding that it extends to any person who provides transportation services under contract, including escort drivers.
Because Hansa Meyer was excluded from general-contractor status, § 406.123(b) did not apply. The court further found that Anderson was an independent contractor under both § 406.121(2) and the common-law right-to-control test. He selected his assignments, provided all necessary equipment, received no training from Hansa Meyer, and exercised professional judgment acquired through his law enforcement experience. Under § 406.122(c), an independent contractor working for a motor carrier is not an employee for workers’ compensation purposes unless a written agreement provides coverage, and no such agreement existed.
The opinion provides useful guidance on how Texas courts interpret the owner-operator exclusion in the Labor Code. The court emphasized that an “owner operator” is any person who provides a motor vehicle, with himself or herself as driver, under contract to transport passengers or property, even when the vehicle is used in an escort or ancillary role essential to the transportation service. The focus is on who furnishes the vehicle and driver, not on ownership of the vehicle or whether it carries the load.
The court’s reasoning also illustrates how the exclusion could apply in other contexts. For example, a funeral home that provides hearses or limousines with drivers to transport remains or mourners might qualify as a motor carrier, and a contracted motorcycle escort such as Anderson would again be an owner-operator excluded from coverage absent a written agreement. If, however, the funeral home provided no vehicles and merely hired an escort for a privately driven procession, it could be treated as a general contractor procuring a service, and the escort might qualify as a deemed employee under § 406.123(b).
If FOL can assist you in determining whether a claimant is an independent contractor, please reach out to GQS@fol.com.
FOLIO
