Reported / Citable
Background
Roberto Huerta sued his former employer, Swabco, Inc., for “intent to injure” after sustaining injuries on October 26, 2021, when a company truck in which he was riding veered off Highway 181 in Andrews County. Huerta alleged he had repeatedly reported suspension and steering problems to his supervisors—both orally and by text message—expressing concern that the vehicle’s condition would result in injury. He claimed the truck’s suspension ultimately failed, causing the accident. Huerta received workers’ compensation benefits through Swabco’s insurance program following the accident.
Swabco asserted the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), arguing that workers’ compensation was Huerta’s only remedy for workplace injuries. The company also moved for no-evidence summary judgment, contending Huerta failed to establish the intentional-tort exception—which requires proof the employer intended to injure a specific employee. Supporting evidence included vehicle maintenance records showing regular servicing (including an oil change and brake job just 20 days before the accident), a vehicle inspection from August 2021 that revealed no defects, and Huerta’s own deposition testimony in which he acknowledged the accident was caused by negligence rather than intentional conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. The panel held that Swabco properly invoked the no-evidence summary judgment procedure because “intent to injure” is an element of Huerta’s claim on which he bore the burden of proof. Under Texas law, even when intent to injure constitutes an exception to the TWCA’s exclusive remedy bar, the burden remains on the plaintiff to prove it.
The court further held that Huerta failed to present more than a scintilla of evidence establishing that Swabco believed Huerta’s injury was “substantially certain to result” from its conduct. Texas courts define “substantial certainty” narrowly: it requires proof that the employer believed injury to a particular employee was substantially certain to occur—approaching inevitability—not merely that the employer knew of hazardous conditions or that injury was possible or even probable. Knowledge of workplace problems and awareness of employee complaints, standing alone, do not satisfy this demanding standard. The court distinguished cases where intent was found (such as Rodriguez v. Naylor, where an employee with visibly cracked tires was ordered to “either drive or walk”) from Huerta’s circumstances, where Swabco maintained regular inspections and servicing without explicit directive to operate in dangerous conditions.
Key Takeaways
- The intentional-tort exception to the TWCA’s exclusive remedy provision requires proof that an employer believed an injury to a specific employee was substantially certain to result—not merely likely, foreseeable, or probable—from the employer’s conduct.
- An employer’s knowledge of workplace hazards and awareness of safety complaints does not, without more, establish the employer’s belief that a specific injury was substantially certain to occur.
- No-evidence summary judgment on the intent element is properly brought by the employer, and the burden remains on the employee to present more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on intent.
- Regular maintenance records and inspections that reveal no defects support the inference that the employer did not believe injury was substantially certain, even if the employer was aware of employee concerns.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Texas maintains a high threshold for piercing the TWCA’s exclusive-remedy bar through the intentional-tort exception. The ruling protects employers who carry workers’ compensation insurance and maintain baseline safety practices, even when aware of workplace conditions that employees report as problematic. Employers cannot be held personally liable for intentional injury merely by failing to act on every safety complaint; liability requires objective evidence that the employer believed a specific injury to a specific employee was substantially certain—a standard closer to inevitability than to heightened negligence or recklessness.
For plaintiffs, the decision clarifies that bare allegations of knowledge, coupled with proof of an accident that did occur, are insufficient to survive summary judgment under the intentional-tort exception. This may significantly limit pathways for injured workers to escape workers’ compensation’s exclusive remedy and pursue common-law tort claims against employers, particularly in cases involving vehicle defects or maintenance concerns where regular servicing records exist.