In the case of Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, ___S.W.3d___, No. 05-0272 (Tex. April 2, 2009), the Texas Supreme Court determined whether or not a premise owner that contracts for work on its premises and provides workers’ compensation insurance to the contractor’s employees is entitled to the exclusive remedy defense provided under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The court withdrew its previous opinion and held that the exclusive remedy defense is available to premise owners who meet the Act’s definition of "general contractor" and who also provide workers’ compensation insurance to lower-tier employees.

      The court examined the Texas Legislature’s definition of general contractor which defines a general contractor as "a person who undertakes to procure the performance of work or a service, either separately or through the use of subcontractors." Tex. Lab. Code § 406.121(1). The court determined that under this definition a premises owner can be a general contractor because a general contractor is the person who takes on the task of obtaining the work. Under the facts of the present case, Entergy Gulf States ("Entergy") contracted with International Maintenance Company ("IMC") to assist in the performance of certain maintenance, repair and other technical services. Entergy provided workers’ compensation coverage in return for a lower contract price from IMC. One of IMC’s employees, Mr. John Summers, was injured at Entergy’s plant, collected the workers’ compensation and then sought to sue Entergy in tort. The court held that Entergy qualified as a general contractor under the Act based on the definition provided by the Texas Legislature and, therefore, Entergy was immune from the tort liability under the exclusive remedy defense.