This appeal arises pursuant to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 401.001 et seq. (1989 Act). Two contested case hearings were held on March 3, 1999, and September 10, 1999, respectively, in __________,Texas, with ________presiding as the hearing officer. With respect to the issues before him, the hearing officer determined that appellant, Farmland Mutual Insurance Company (carrier 1), is liable for respondent 1’s (claimant) compensable injury of ________; and that respondent 2’s, Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund (carrier 2), failure to contest compensability does not extend its coverage or relieve carrier 1 of liability for workers’ compensation benefits. In its appeal, carrier 1 argues that carrier 2 provided coverage to the claimant’s employer because its policy “had not been canceled as required by the formal notice of cancellation provisions of the insurance contract, as well as the statutory requirements of Section 406.008 . . . .” Carrier 1 also argues that under Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950042, decided February 23, 1995, carrier 2’s coverage was extended because it did not timely contest compensability of the claimant’s injury under Section 409.021(c). In its response to carrier 1’s appeal, carrier 2 urges affirmance. The appeals file does not contain a response to carrier 1’s appeal from the claimant.
DECISION
Affirmed.
The parties stipulated that the claimant sustained a compensable injury on ________, in the course and scope of his employment with Pat Pilgrim Farms (employer). The issue in this case concerns which of two carriers provided coverage to the claimant’s employer on the date of his compensable injury and the facts are largely undisputed. Carrier 2 issued a policy of workers’ compensation insurance to the employer with the effective date of July 7, 1997, to July 7, 1998. Apparently a dispute developed between the employer and carrier 2; thus, the employer obtained a new policy of workers’ compensation insurance from carrier 1, with the effective dates of April 1, 1998, through April 1, 1999. The employer discontinued making premium payments to carrier 2 on or about April 1, 1998. Carrier 2 received notice of the claimant’s injury and paid benefits to the claimant pursuant to the original insurance contract. On September 4, 1998, carrier 2 filed a Payment of Compensation or Notice of Refused/Disputed Claim (TWCC-21) with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission), raising the coverage issue. On October 14, 1998, carrier 2 completed an Insurance Carrier’s Notice of Coverage/Cancellation/Non-Renewal of Coverage (TWCC-20) form, which listed the effective date of the cancellation as April 1, 1998. That document was filed with the Commission on October 15, 1998.
Initially, we consider carrier 1’s assertion that the hearing officer erred in determining that carrier 2’s “failure to timely contest compensability does not extend their coverage or relieve [carrier 1] of liability.” Carrier 1 cites Appeal No. 950042, supra, in support of its argument; however, as the hearing officer noted, in Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. Association Cas. Ins. Co., 977 S.W.2d 634 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1998, no writ), the Tyler Court of Appeals held that workers’ compensation coverage may not be extended by waiver or estoppel. In so holding, the Houston General court overruled Appeal No. 950042, which had affirmed a hearing officer’s determination that the carrier had waived its right to contest coverage by not disputing the claim within 60 days of having received notice of the injury under Section 409.021(c). Carrier 1’s continued reliance on Appeal No. 950042 is misplaced and we find no merit in its assertion that the hearing officer erred in determining that carrier 1’s failure to contest the claimant’s claim did not extend its coverage to the claimant’s injury, which occurred after its policy was canceled.
Carrier 1 also argues that it and carrier 2 provided “dual coverage” at the time of the compensable injury. Carrier 1 maintains that because the notification requirements of Sections 406.007 and 406.008 were not satisfied at the time of the compensable injury, carrier 2’s coverage remained in effect. We have previously considered and rejected this argument. In Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 941595, decided January 12, 1995, we held that Section 406.007 extends liability of a previous carrier until the later of the 30th day after the date of filing of notice of cancellation or the cancellation date of the policy only in those circumstances where an employer terminates coverage altogether and becomes a nonsubscriber under the 1989 Act and not where, as here, it changes carriers but keeps coverage in force. Similarly, in Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 950966, decided July 24, 1995, we held that a carrier’s failure to comply with the cancellation notice requirements of Section 406.008 “extends coverage only in those cases where there is a gap in coverage or the employer fails to provide replacement coverage and opts out of the workers’ compensation program altogether.” In this instance there was no gap in coverage; therefore, the noncompliance with the cancellation notice requirements of Sections 406.007 and 406.008 by the time of the claimant’s compensable injury did not extend the period of carrier 2’s coverage. Accordingly, the hearing officer did not err in determining in this case that carrier 2’s coverage was no longer in effect at the time of the compensable injury and, as such, that it is not liable for workers’ compensation benefits herein.
The hearing officer’s decision and order are affirmed.
Elaine M. Chaney – Appeals Judge
CONCUR:
Thomas A. Knapp – Appeals Judge
Dorian E. Ramirez – Appeals Judge