The Texas Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont reversed a trial court and dismissed a workers’ compensation death benefits claim against the Texas Association of Counties Risk Management Pool (TAC RMP), holding that the pool qualifies as a governmental unit entitled to sovereign immunity under the state’s Interlocal Cooperation Act. The ruling, published in May 2026, draws a bright line between the pool entity that administers a self-insured program and the member county that actually owes benefits.
The case
San Jacinto County Constable’s Deputy Neil Adams was fatally shot in February 2022 while working off-duty private security at a Houston mall. He was in uniform and carrying his county-issued weapon. His widow, Dianna Adams, sought death benefits, arguing that Adams was acting in the course and scope of his county employment because he responded to a disturbance as a peace officer. The Texas Department of Insurance’s Division of Workers’ Compensation denied the claim.
Adams sued for judicial review and sought a declaratory judgment that peace officers working approved off-duty jobs remain within the scope of employment when crimes occur in their presence. The trial court denied the pool’s plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment in her favor. The Ninth Court of Appeals reversed on both counts.
The central holding: TAC RMP was formed under Texas Government Code Chapter 791, which authorizes political subdivisions to pool resources through interlocal cooperation agreements. Because the pool administers the counties’ self-insured workers’ compensation programs under that statute, it functions as a governmental unit and retains the immunity that attaches to one. While Texas law waives immunity for claims against an “insurance carrier,” the court found that designation belongs to San Jacinto County (the self-insured employer), not the pool that administers claims on the county’s behalf.
Who it affects
Public entity risk pools that administer self-insured workers’ compensation programs for member counties, cities, or special districts. The ruling binds courts in the Ninth District (southeast Texas), but the logic extends to any state where a public entity pool is organized under an interlocal cooperation statute and argues it is an administrator, not an insurer. Pool managers, public entity finance directors, and joint powers authorities (JPAs) that serve a parallel function in other states should all take note.
The reserve mechanism
The reserve effect is about who carries the liability, not just how much liability exists. When a disputed death benefits claim names the pool entity itself as the respondent, the pool carries a case reserve or contingent reserve for that exposure. If the pool is immune, the claim reverts to the individual member employer. The pool’s aggregate reserve for disputed claims shrinks; the member county’s does not.
For pools that have been probability-weighting disputed claims at the pool level, this ruling provides legal support for reducing the probability weight on matters where governmental immunity applies. The effect surfaces in the pool’s overall loss development pattern and in the contingent liability line of its financial statements.
What this means for your next review
If you manage or sit on the board of a public entity pool, ask your administrator to identify every open disputed claim where the pool entity (not the member employer) is named as respondent. Then ask your actuary whether the case reserves for those matters should be discounted or reassigned to the member level in light of this appellate holding. Pools organized under interlocal cooperation statutes in other states should examine whether their enabling legislation supports a parallel immunity argument.
Watch next: whether Adams petitions the Texas Supreme Court for review, and whether risk pools in other states cite this holding to assert immunity in their own pending disputes.