A Texas appellate court has upheld a ruling denying workers’ compensation benefits to a reserve police officer who was injured while escorting an oversized load for a heavy hauling company.
In Anderson v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co., No. 14-23-00942-CV, issued March 25, 2025, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s take-nothing judgment against Marcus W. Anderson, who was injured in a traffic collision while working as a motorcycle police escort for Hansa Meyer Heavy Hauling & Rigging USA, LLC. The appellate court agreed that Anderson was not a deemed employee of Hansa Meyer under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and that Texas Mutual Insurance Company properly denied his claim.
Anderson, a commissioned reserve police officer with the Galena Park Police Department, operates a side business providing uniformed motorcycle police escort services to private entities such as funeral homes, athletic teams, and trucking companies. This work, which requires a licensed peace officer, is performed using Anderson’s own police motorcycle, siren, emergency lights, uniform, and other police gear. He is paid a daily rate—$1,200 in this case—directly by clients, and he pays his own income taxes.
In this instance, Hansa Meyer, a registered Texas motor carrier specializing in transporting oversized loads, contracted to haul a demethanizer tower from Baytown, Texas, to Pierce, Colorado. Hansa Meyer typically relies on Deputy J.R. Case of the Waller County Sheriff's Department to coordinate police escorts. Deputy Case was unavailable for this job and instead referred Anderson.
Anderson agreed to provide the escort from Baytown to Perryton, Texas. He was not required to fill out an application, sign a contract, or undergo training. Hansa Meyer gave him a radio for coordination but did not control how he performed the escort. He wore his own police uniform and operated his own marked motorcycle.
Anderson was injured in a collision during the escort and filed a workers’ compensation claim under Hansa Meyer’s policy with Texas Mutual. The insurer denied the claim on the grounds that Anderson was an independent contractor, not an employee. Anderson bypassed the benefit-review conference and proceeded directly to a contested case hearing. The administrative law judge ruled against him, and the Division of Workers’ Compensation appeals panel adopted that decision. Anderson then sought judicial review in district court, which also ruled in favor of Texas Mutual.
On appeal, Anderson argued that he should be considered a “deemed employee” of Hansa Meyer under Texas Labor Code § 406.123(b), which provides that:
“If a general contractor has workers' compensation insurance... and enters into a contract with a subcontractor who does not have employees, the general contractor shall be treated as the employer of the subcontractor.”
To prevail, Anderson had to establish that (1) Hansa Meyer was a general contractor under § 406.121(1), and (2) he was a subcontractor performing part of the work the general contractor had undertaken.
However, the appellate court found that Hansa Meyer was a motor carrier, and the Labor Code specifically excludes motor carriers that use owner operators from the definition of “general contractor”:
“The term [general contractor] does not include a motor carrier that provides a transportation service through the use of an owner operator.”
— Tex. Lab. Code § 406.121(1)
Anderson was deemed to be an “owner operator” under § 406.121(4), which defines such a person as someone who:“provides transportation services under contract for a motor carrier. An owner operator is an independent contractor.”
Although Anderson argued that Hansa Meyer’s use of its own trucks and employees excluded it from this statutory exception, the court rejected that view, holding that the presence of even one owner operator—Anderson himself—was sufficient to trigger the exclusion. As a result, Hansa Meyer was not a general contractor, and Anderson was not a subcontractor or deemed employee under § 406.123(b).
The court also affirmed the trial court’s finding that Anderson was an independent contractor under § 406.121(2) and Texas case law, noting that:
Furthermore, under § 406.122(c), an independent contractor working for a motor carrier is not considered an employee unless there is a written agreement to extend workers’ compensation coverage. No such agreement existed in this case.
Because Hansa Meyer was a motor carrier that used an owner operator, and Anderson was working as an independent contractor without a written agreement for coverage, the court concluded he was not entitled to benefits under the Texas Mutual Insurance policy.
