An insurer tried to exit a Tennessee injury claim, saying the court had no power over it. An appeals board said no.
In a decision filed July 30, 2026, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board kept Texas Mutual Insurance Company in a case brought by a Texas construction worker who fell four stories from a Nashville roof.
The worker slipped on ice in January 2023 and suffered injuries the trial court called "severe." Figuring out who actually employed him took years, and he filed claims against several construction entities before the picture cleared. His lawyers first believed his direct employer, a framing subcontractor, had no coverage at all. Through discovery they learned otherwise: the subcontractor carried a policy with Texas Mutual on the date of the fall.
The insurer moved to get out. It argued its policy covered only injuries that occurred in Texas and that a Tennessee workers' compensation court had no personal jurisdiction over it - no authority to make it answer the claim. It called itself a state-created entity meant to handle Texas claims.
The general contractor pushed back, citing a certificate of insurance obtained for the subcontractor. The certificate said the "workers' compensation policy covers all Texas hired workers for subcontracted positions in the state of Tennessee." Texas Mutual replied that the agency that issued the certificate did not speak for it. The trial court had leaned on that certificate to keep the insurer in, finding it had enough of a Tennessee connection.
The appeals board reached the same result by a different route, and skipped the jurisdiction debate entirely. It said Texas Mutual had misread its role. Under Tennessee law, when an employer is insured, the term "employer" "shall include the employer's insurer" - so the carrier was in the case automatically, no special order or jurisdiction test required.
What Texas Mutual really sought, the board said, was a ruling that it need not cover the claim. That is a coverage question resting on the insurance contract - and a workers' compensation court cannot decide it. Such disputes belong in a court of general jurisdiction. To argue its policy does not reach a Tennessee injury, Texas Mutual must go there. For now it remains in the case, its exposure tied entirely to its insured's, and the board modified the order to make clear the insurer is not an independent party. Costs of the appeal fell to Texas Mutual, and the case heads back to the trial court.
