CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-00-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

All American Life Insurance Company American General Life Insurance Company American National Insurance Company American National Life Insurance Company of Texas IDS Life Insurance Company And USLIFE Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas

Several insurance companies appealed a district court judgment affirming the Comptroller's assessment of premium and maintenance taxes on 'internal rollover' transactions, where policyholders transfer accumulation values within the same company for new policies. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reviewed the construction of Texas Insurance Code articles 4.11 and 4.17 de novo. The court determined that 'internal rollovers' do not involve funds being 'received' or 'collected' by the insurance companies, as the funds remain within the company. Therefore, these transactions are not subject to the premium and maintenance taxes. The judgment of the district court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded for a determination of the refund amounts owed to the companies.

Insurance LawTax LawPremium TaxInternal RolloversStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsInsurance CompaniesComptrollerGross PremiumsTax Refund
References
9
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. 14-06-00592-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2007

Ace American Insurance Company v. Erasmo Marez

This is a workers' compensation case where the jury initially found that Erasmo Marez was not injured during his employment. However, the trial court granted Marez's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and ordered Ace American Insurance Company to pay Marez's attorney's fees. Ace appealed, arguing that sufficient evidence supported the jury's original verdict. The appellate court agreed with Ace, finding that the jury was within its rights to discredit Marez's inconsistent testimony and resolve conflicting evidence in Ace's favor. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's JNOV and the award of attorney's fees, rendering judgment in favor of Ace American Insurance Company.

Judgment Notwithstanding the VerdictJury Verdict ReversalAppellate ProcedureWitness CredibilityConflicting EvidenceSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's Fees AwardCompensability ClaimEmployment InjuryDe Novo Review
References
12
Case No. 08-09-00166-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

Margarita Leyva v. ACE American Insurance Company

Margarita Leyva appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Ace American Insurance Company. Leyva, injured on the job, sued Ace American for alleged statutory bad faith due to their failure to provide claim information under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and Insurance Code. The trial court granted summary judgment, prompting Leyva’s appeal. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment concerning the statutory bad faith claim, finding no such cause of action in the relevant codes. However, it reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment relating to Leyva’s request for a declaration that Ace American had waived its subrogation interest, as this claim was not addressed in the summary judgment motion.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentStatutory Bad FaithInsurance CodeSubrogation InterestAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeDeceptive PracticesUnfair Settlement PracticesDeclaratory Judgment
References
16
Case No. 11-08-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2010

Jose Luis Garriga v. Ace American Insurance Company

Ace American Insurance Company sued Jose Luis Garriga, Ramon Barragan, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and Troy Scott Hickman for wrongful settlement. The trial court initially granted Ace's motion for summary judgment, awarding them $37,923.09. This appeal followed, concerning the trial court's decision on the amount Ace could recover from a third-party settlement. Barragan was injured in an automobile accident within the scope of his employment, and Ace was his employer's workers' compensation carrier. Barragan, represented by Garriga, settled a third-party claim with Hickman's insurer, State Farm, for $12,600, without fully satisfying Ace's workers' compensation subrogation lien. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in awarding Ace the full amount of benefits paid and determined that Ace was entitled to recover only the settlement amount of $12,600, less a medical expenses offset of $6,364.81. The court also overruled claims regarding attorney's fees and negligence.

Workers' Compensation SubrogationWrongful SettlementThird-Party LiabilityInsurance Carrier RightsAttorney's FeesMedical Expense OffsetSummary Judgment AppealTexas Appellate LawJoint and Several LiabilityAutomobile Accident Claim
References
12
Case No. 01-00-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company

This case involves indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Appellants, Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company, appealed a summary judgment granted to appellees, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company. The trial court had ruled that mutual indemnity provisions in an oil and gas drilling contract were void under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the contract was enforceable up to the extent of mutual coverage and dollar limits, and that its indemnity provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnityInsurance ClaimsTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationConspicuousnessAppellate ReviewWell Blowout
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2010

Garriga v. Ace American Insurance Co.

Ace American Insurance Company initiated a lawsuit against Jose Luis Garriga, Ramon Barragan, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and Troy Scott Hickman for wrongful settlement. The core of the dispute involved Ace, a workers' compensation carrier, seeking to recover its subrogation interest from a settlement made between the injured employee, Barragan, and the third-party tortfeasor, Hickman, insured by State Farm. The appellate court examined Texas Labor Code sections pertaining to subrogation rights and the limits of a carrier's recovery when the third-party settlement is less than the total workers' compensation benefits paid. Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Ace's recovery was limited to the $12,600 settlement amount, minus a $6,364.81 medical expense offset, rather than the full amount of workers' compensation benefits it had paid.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationWrongful SettlementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeAttorney FeesJoint and Several LiabilityThird-Party ActionMedical Expense Offset
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leyva v. Ace American Insurance Co.

Margarita Leyva appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Ace American Insurance Company. Leyva, an employee injured at The Scott Fetzer Company, sued Ace American for alleged violations of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and Insurance Code, citing statutory bad faith for failure to provide claim information, and sought a declaration regarding Ace American's subrogation interest. The trial court initially granted a take-nothing summary judgment against Leyva. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment concerning Leyva's statutory bad faith claim, concluding that no such cause of action exists under the cited codes for failure to provide subrogation information. However, the court reversed and remanded the portion of the judgment addressing Leyva's request for a declaration on the waiver of subrogation interest, as Ace American had not moved for summary judgment on that specific claim.

Workers' CompensationStatutory Bad FaithSummary JudgmentSubrogation InterestInsurance Code ViolationsTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewWaiverDeceptive Trade PracticesUnfair Settlement Practices
References
17
Case No. 06-1030
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2008

Zurich American Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, and National Union Fire Insurance Company v. Nokia, Incorporated

This is a dissenting opinion from Justice Hecht of the Supreme Court of Texas, joined by Justice Brister, concerning a petition for review by various insurance companies (Zurich American, Federal, National Union Fire) against Nokia, Inc. The central issue is whether the insurers have a duty to defend Nokia in class action lawsuits. These lawsuits allege "biological injury" from cellphone radiation but meticulously avoid claiming "bodily injury," instead seeking damages for the lack of provided headsets. Justice Hecht argues that despite a liberal interpretation rule for pleadings, these class action complaints do not trigger the insurers' duty to defend, as the damages claimed are not for personal injury and class counsel explicitly denied seeking personal injury compensation. He concludes that the majority's decision, which implies a duty to defend, rewards ambiguous pleading.

Insurance LawDuty to DefendClass ActionBodily InjuryBiological InjuryPleading InterpretationCellphone RadiationAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionTexas Supreme Court
References
11
Case No. 03-04-00342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2005

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

First American Title Insurance Company and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, foreign title insurers in Texas, challenged the Comptroller's revised interpretation of retaliatory tax calculations. The new interpretation allowed insurers to include only 15% of the premium tax paid, instead of 100%, in determining their financial burden for retaliatory tax purposes, arguing that title agents bore the remaining 85%. The companies claimed this interpretation was incorrect and unconstitutional, leading to significantly higher taxes for foreign insurers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the Comptroller's interpretation reasonable, consistent with the statutes, and constitutional, as it served the legitimate governmental purpose of deterring other states from imposing excessive taxes on Texas-based insurers.

Retaliatory TaxTitle InsurancePremium TaxInsurance LawTax LawStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionAdministrative Law
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 20,616 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational