Highway Ins. Underwriters v. Le Beau
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion
On Second Motion for Rehearing.
McDONALD, Chief Justice.
In their second motion for rehearing ap-pellees contend that we erred in holding that they were precluded from recovering compensation because the employer had never had as many as three employees. Appellees argue that section 2 of article 8306 applies only to damage suits against an employer, and not to suits against an insurance carrier to recover workmen’s compensation.
It was with reluctance that we held that section 2 of article 8306 applied to this case. But, however logical might be the contention made by appellees, we are faced…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hill v. Georgia Casualty Co.Texas Commission of Appeals · 1932
- Gordon v. BusterTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- Gordon v. BusterTexas Supreme Court · 1923
- Holmes v. Travelers Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1941
- Guerrero v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.