Fourteenth Court Of Appeals Reaffirms Standard To Establish Exclusive Remedy Defense Under The Texas Workers' Compensation Act

On December 18, 2025, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued its latest opinion on an Owner Controlled Insurance Program ("OCIP") and reaffirmed the broad scope of coverage under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act when such programs are in place.

Under the Act, a site owner or contractor that implements an OCIP to insure its subcontractor's employees is deemed the "statutory employer" for those employees, meaning workers' compensation becomes the exclusive remedy for any injury to those employees. With limited exceptions, the site owner or contractor is statutorily immune from common-law tort liability.

Just last year, The Fourteenth Court of Appeals confirmed the requirements to establish coverage under an OCIP in ExxonMobil v. Alvarez. The court made clear that OCIP providers need only establish two elements to receive immunity under the Act: (i) the existence of a written agreement providing workers' compensation coverage to the subcontractor's employees; and (ii) insurance coverage in effect for the injured worker at the time of injury. The court also rejected efforts to expand the proof necessary to establish coverage, holding that a site owner or contractor need not show purchase orders related to the work or provide evidence of policy premium payments.

On December 18, 2025, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reaffirmed its holdings from Alvarez. In the case In re Exxon Mobil Corp., a contractor's employee claimed to have been injured while working at an ExxonMobil facility in Louisiana and sued ExxonMobil for negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability. ExxonMobil moved for summary judgment on its exclusive remedy defense, and when that motion was denied, ExxonMobil sought mandamus relief. In granting that relief, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reiterated that:

• The law requires only a written agreement and the existence of coverage to establish immunity under the exclusive remedy; no additional evidence is needed.
• Out-of-state coverage is available when the OCIP policy covers the facility where the injury occurred.
• The intentional act exception to the exclusive remedy is very narrow and limited to truly intentional acts.

The court found these issues significant enough to conditionally grant ExxonMobil's writ application. In doing so, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals recognized that the Act's exclusive-remedy framework implicates important substantive rights. According to the court, requiring ExxonMobil to go to trial on claims for which it was statutorily immune would deprive ExxonMobil of its rights and would undermine the purpose of Texas's workers' compensation scheme. Thus, the court conditionally granted ExxonMobil's writ application, directing the district court to grant ExxonMobil's summary judgment motion.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.