OPINION
GREEN, Justice.
Esquivel appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Montfort, Inc. d/b/a/ Mapelli Food Distribution Co. and Mapelli Food Distributing Co. d/b/a Mapelli Food Distribution Co., incorrectly identified in plaintiffs original petition as Mapelli Meat Packing Co. (“Mapelli”). Esquivel complains the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because (1) material fact issues remain as to the “right of control” of Esquiv-el’s work and (2) Mapelli’s summary judgment proof failed to establish that Mapelli was a workers’ compensation subscriber and that Esquivel had notice of that coverage. Further, Esquivel contends the trial court [614]*614erred by denying his motion for continuance to gather additional evidence prior to ruling on the motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Austin Temporary Services, Inc. (“ATS”) hired Esquivel as a temporary worker and placed him at Mapelli’s. Esquivel sued Ma-pelli for injuries allegedly sustained while he was working on Mapelli’s premises. Esquiv-el asserted that he was injured when a Ma-pelli employee operating a forklift dropped boxes of cheese on him. Mapelli generally denied the allegations, later amending its answer to claim that Esquivel was its “borrowed servant” and that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity provision barred Esquivel’s suit.
Esquivel’s first point of error complains the trial court erred in granting Mapelli’s summary judgment motion because fact issues remain about which employer, ATS or Mapelli, had the right of control over Esquiv-el’s work.
By seeking summary judgment, the mov-ant assumes the burden to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists and it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). If, and only if, the movant carries its burden does the burden shift to the nonmovant to present controverting summary judgment evidence. Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 556 (Tex.1989).
In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment where the movant has carried its burden, the nonmovant must clearly present, by written motion, answer, or other response, any reasons seeking to avoid the movant’s entitlement to summary judgment and, if necessary, must present summary judgment proof to establish a fact issue. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979). Evidence favorable to the nonmovant is taken as true, and every reasonable inference from that evidence will be resolved in favor of the nonmovant. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. All other evidence and inferences are disregarded. Id.
Texas courts recognize that the general employee of one employer may become the special employee or “borrowed servant” of another employer. Sparger v. Worley Hosp., Inc., 547 S.W.2d 582, 583 (Tex.1977). The issue of “right of control” is pivotal under the borrowed servant doctrine because the employer who has the right of control is exempted from common-law liability. Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 863 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1993, no writ).
Our challenge is to ascertain the meaning of “right of control” as it applies in the “borrowed servant” context. To ascertain whether, an employee, in the general employ of one person, who has been loaned to another, is the employee of the original employer or of the borrowing employer, the test is whether the employee is subject to the specific direction and control of the loaning or the borrowing employer. Hilgenberg v. Elam, 198 S.W.2d 94, 95 (Tex.1946). The governing inquiry in the “borrowed servant” context is which employer, the general or special, controlled the “very transaction out of which the injury arose.” See Id. Directing the details and manner of work, confirms which employer has the “right of control” of an employee in the borrowed servant circumstance. Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 863 S.W.2d at 111. A “borrowed servant” may be the employee of the special employer for some acts and not for others. Hilgenberg v. Elam, 198 S.W.2d at 96.
Generally, the issue of right of control is a matter of agreement between the parties. Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 863 S.W.2d at 111. However, in an instance such as this where no written contract exists, and neither party claims their oral agreement addressed the issue, the facts and circumstances, and inferences therefrom, determine the right of control. Denison v. Haeber Roofing Co., 767 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1989, no writ). The right of control is determined by examining the nature of the general project, the nature of the work to be performed by the employees furnished, length of the special employment, and acts representing an exercise of actual [615]*615control. Producers Chemical Co. v. McKay, 366 S.W.2d 220, 226 (Tex.1963).
The summary judgment evidence before the court includes the deposition testimony from Amado Esquivel, Richard Sandoval, fellow ATS co-worker at Mapelli’s, Armando Rodriguez, night manager at Ma-pelli’s, and affidavits from Judy Barrick, owner of ATS, and Armando Rodriguez. The deposition excerpts from Esquivel, Sandoval, and Rodriguez, as well as Rodriguez’s affidavit clearly indicate that Esquivel’s work at Mapelli’s was directed by Mapelli employees, particularly night supervisor, Sam Flowers and that no ATS personnel came to the Mapelli site.
Barrick’s affidavits are equivocal. In her first affidavit, Barrick avers that Mapelli exercised “complete direction, custody and control” over Esquivel while he was at Mapelli’s. Approximately two months later, Barrick made handwritten alterations to her original affidavit, changing it to say that ATS exercised “complete direction, custody and control” over Esquivel while he worked at Ma-pelli’s. Ten days after amending her first affidavit, Barrick made a third affidavit and attested to the following:
[Esquivel] was temporarily placed with Mapelli Food Distribution Services, Inc., with instructions to perform certain tasks, under verbal agreement between Mapelli and ATSI. Under such verbal agreement, our employees are instructed to do tasks outlined and directed by our clients on their premises, providing our clients adhere to those such tasks which fall in the category of their original work order, such as “laborer.”
Despite Barrick’s contradictory affidavits regarding “control,” it is uncontroverted that no ATS representative, including Barrick, ever went to the Mapelli Food Distribution location.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
GREEN, Justice.
Esquivel appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant, Montfort, Inc. d/b/a/ Mapelli Food Distribution Co. and Mapelli Food Distributing Co. d/b/a Mapelli Food Distribution Co., incorrectly identified in plaintiffs original petition as Mapelli Meat Packing Co. (“Mapelli”). Esquivel complains the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because (1) material fact issues remain as to the “right of control” of Esquiv-el’s work and (2) Mapelli’s summary judgment proof failed to establish that Mapelli was a workers’ compensation subscriber and that Esquivel had notice of that coverage. Further, Esquivel contends the trial court [614]*614erred by denying his motion for continuance to gather additional evidence prior to ruling on the motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Austin Temporary Services, Inc. (“ATS”) hired Esquivel as a temporary worker and placed him at Mapelli’s. Esquivel sued Ma-pelli for injuries allegedly sustained while he was working on Mapelli’s premises. Esquiv-el asserted that he was injured when a Ma-pelli employee operating a forklift dropped boxes of cheese on him. Mapelli generally denied the allegations, later amending its answer to claim that Esquivel was its “borrowed servant” and that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act exclusivity provision barred Esquivel’s suit.
Esquivel’s first point of error complains the trial court erred in granting Mapelli’s summary judgment motion because fact issues remain about which employer, ATS or Mapelli, had the right of control over Esquiv-el’s work.
By seeking summary judgment, the mov-ant assumes the burden to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists and it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548 (Tex.1985). If, and only if, the movant carries its burden does the burden shift to the nonmovant to present controverting summary judgment evidence. Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551, 556 (Tex.1989).
In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment where the movant has carried its burden, the nonmovant must clearly present, by written motion, answer, or other response, any reasons seeking to avoid the movant’s entitlement to summary judgment and, if necessary, must present summary judgment proof to establish a fact issue. Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex.1979). Evidence favorable to the nonmovant is taken as true, and every reasonable inference from that evidence will be resolved in favor of the nonmovant. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. All other evidence and inferences are disregarded. Id.
Texas courts recognize that the general employee of one employer may become the special employee or “borrowed servant” of another employer. Sparger v. Worley Hosp., Inc., 547 S.W.2d 582, 583 (Tex.1977). The issue of “right of control” is pivotal under the borrowed servant doctrine because the employer who has the right of control is exempted from common-law liability. Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 863 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1993, no writ).
Our challenge is to ascertain the meaning of “right of control” as it applies in the “borrowed servant” context. To ascertain whether, an employee, in the general employ of one person, who has been loaned to another, is the employee of the original employer or of the borrowing employer, the test is whether the employee is subject to the specific direction and control of the loaning or the borrowing employer. Hilgenberg v. Elam, 198 S.W.2d 94, 95 (Tex.1946). The governing inquiry in the “borrowed servant” context is which employer, the general or special, controlled the “very transaction out of which the injury arose.” See Id. Directing the details and manner of work, confirms which employer has the “right of control” of an employee in the borrowed servant circumstance. Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 863 S.W.2d at 111. A “borrowed servant” may be the employee of the special employer for some acts and not for others. Hilgenberg v. Elam, 198 S.W.2d at 96.
Generally, the issue of right of control is a matter of agreement between the parties. Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 863 S.W.2d at 111. However, in an instance such as this where no written contract exists, and neither party claims their oral agreement addressed the issue, the facts and circumstances, and inferences therefrom, determine the right of control. Denison v. Haeber Roofing Co., 767 S.W.2d 862, 865 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1989, no writ). The right of control is determined by examining the nature of the general project, the nature of the work to be performed by the employees furnished, length of the special employment, and acts representing an exercise of actual [615]*615control. Producers Chemical Co. v. McKay, 366 S.W.2d 220, 226 (Tex.1963).
The summary judgment evidence before the court includes the deposition testimony from Amado Esquivel, Richard Sandoval, fellow ATS co-worker at Mapelli’s, Armando Rodriguez, night manager at Ma-pelli’s, and affidavits from Judy Barrick, owner of ATS, and Armando Rodriguez. The deposition excerpts from Esquivel, Sandoval, and Rodriguez, as well as Rodriguez’s affidavit clearly indicate that Esquivel’s work at Mapelli’s was directed by Mapelli employees, particularly night supervisor, Sam Flowers and that no ATS personnel came to the Mapelli site.
Barrick’s affidavits are equivocal. In her first affidavit, Barrick avers that Mapelli exercised “complete direction, custody and control” over Esquivel while he was at Mapelli’s. Approximately two months later, Barrick made handwritten alterations to her original affidavit, changing it to say that ATS exercised “complete direction, custody and control” over Esquivel while he worked at Ma-pelli’s. Ten days after amending her first affidavit, Barrick made a third affidavit and attested to the following:
[Esquivel] was temporarily placed with Mapelli Food Distribution Services, Inc., with instructions to perform certain tasks, under verbal agreement between Mapelli and ATSI. Under such verbal agreement, our employees are instructed to do tasks outlined and directed by our clients on their premises, providing our clients adhere to those such tasks which fall in the category of their original work order, such as “laborer.”
Despite Barrick’s contradictory affidavits regarding “control,” it is uncontroverted that no ATS representative, including Barrick, ever went to the Mapelli Food Distribution location. That being the case, Barrick’s statement that ATS maintained “complete, direction, custody, and control” of all ATS employees, including Esquivel, while those employees worked at Mapelli is conclusory and of no legal effect because the statement about control is not based on Barrick’s personal knowledge regarding the exercise of actual control of the details and manner of Esquivel’s work at the time of his injury.1 Moreover, because Barrick lacked personal knowledge regarding actual control of the specific conduct leading to Esquivel’s injury, anything Barrick averred regarding right of control is not material to any fact genuinely at issue. Although ATS may have maintained control of Esquivel for certain purposes (e.g. qualifying for position, assigning work location, requiring payroll reports, etc.), uncontroverted evidence shows that Mapelli personnel controlled the manner and details of Esquivel’s work at the time he was injured.
Esquivel argues that Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co. and Denison v. Haeber Roofing Co. are inapplicable to the case at hand because the nonmovants in those cases did not present competent summary judg[616]*616ment evidence to put “right of control” in issue. However, striving to distinguish Re-galado and Denison based on the mechanics of the summary judgment procedure involved therein misses the significance of those cases as they apply here. Regalado and Denison are useful insofar as they delineate the considerations to be scrutinized in ascertaining which employer has the right of control. Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co., 863 S.W.2d at 111; Denison v. Haeber Roofing Co., 767 S.W.2d at 864-66. Esquivel’s first point of error is overruled.
In his second point of error, Esquivel asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to continue the summary judgment hearing. Esquivel states that Mapelli’s motion for summary judgment was the first pleading to mention the “borrowed servant” theory as a defense, and not until after that time did Mapelli amend its answer to affirmatively plead “borrowed servant.” Esquivel also claims that, despite being surprised by the new defense, he made a diligent effort to gather controverting summary judgment proof. Specifically, Esquivel sought to depose Barriek and the person under Mapelli’s control most knowledgeable about any workers’ compensation coverage provided by Mapelli to its workers.
As a general rule, granting or denying a requested continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Hernandez v. Heldenfels, 374 S.W.2d 196, 202 (Tex.1963). Denial of a continuance based on lack of time to prepare when the party had at least 21 days notice of the summary judgment hearing is generally not an abuse of discretion. Clemons v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 879 S.W.2d 385, 394 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ).
Here Esquivel had 21 days notice of the summary judgment hearing, but did not notice depositions for the two people whom he claimed were essential to controvert Ma-pelli’s summary judgment proof until late Friday afternoon, scheduling Monday depositions in anticipation of a Tuesday summary judgment hearing. Further, the court permitted fourteen days post-hearing for Es-quivel to acquire an additional affidavit. Ford v. Ireland, 699 S.W.2d 587, 588 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1985, no writ). Under the facts and circumstances before us, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant Esquivel’s request for continuance, therefore, Esquivel’s second point of error is overruled.
Point of error number three complains the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Mapelli did not prove as a matter of law that it was a workers’ compensation subscriber with respect to Esquivel or that Esquivel had proper notice that he was covered under Mapelli’s insurance. Specifically, Esquivel contends that Mapelli did not prove as a matter of law which Mapelli enterprise, if any, was covered by workers’ compensation insurance. Additionally, Esquivel argues that Barrick’s affidavits stating that Mapelli did not make payments to ATS for workers’ compensation insurance premiums creates a fact issue regarding the existence of Mapelli’s coverage.
As a preliminary matter, Esquiv-el did not urge lack of notice of coverage as a ground upon which denial of the motion for summary judgment might properly be based, thus, that issue may not be raised on appeal to defeat the summary judgment. Even if notice of coverage had been raised as a proper ground for denial, coverage, and, hence the exclusivity bar of the workers’ compensation statute does not hinge on whether notice has been provided to the employee. Tex Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 8308-10.21,-10.22 (Vernon Supp.1992), repealed by, Act of May 22, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 269, § 5(2), 1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 987, 1273 (current version at Tex.Lajb.Code Ann. § 406.005 (Vernon Supp. 1996). Failure to notify an employee of coverage constitutes an administrative violation punished only by fine. Tex.Lab.Code Ann. §§ 406.005(c), 415.022 (Vernon Supp.1996).
Armando Rodriguez’s affidavit collectively referred to both entities, Montfort, Inc. d/b/a/ Mapelli Food Distributing Company and Montfort Food Distributing Company d/b/a/ Mapelli Food Distribution Company as “Ma-pelli,” and averred that at the time of Es-quivel’s injury, “Mapelli’s workers’ compensation insurance was in full force and effect.” Also, Mapelli’s summary judgment proof in-[617]*617eludes an affidavit from Patricia Tomczyk, an employee of the insurance company that underwrites Mapelli’s workers’ compensation insurance stating that Mapelli was a subscriber at the time relevant to this cause.
Although Barrick’s affidavit states that Mapelli did not pay compensation insurance premiums through ATS, such deposition testimony is not probative of the existence of coverage on behalf of Mapelli workers, including Esquivel, and does not controvert Mapelli’s evidence that it was a subscriber. Esquivel does not point out, nor have we found, other evidence which controverts the factual assertions contained in Rodriguez and Tomczyk’s affidavits. Consequently, Esquiv-el’s third point of error is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.