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. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. 14-09-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2009

in Re Investment Capital Corporation and Service Corporation International

Relators Investment Capital Corporation (ICC) and Service Corporation International (SCI) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Kathleen Stone of Probate Court No. 1 of Harris County to grant leave to designate SCI Funeral & Cemetary Purchasing Cooperative, Inc. as a responsible third party in a wrongful death suit. The underlying suit was initiated by the widow of Harold Israel, who suffered fatal injuries after falling in a parking garage. The trial court denied the relators' motion to designate SCI Funeral as a responsible third party. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the relators had an adequate remedy at law and that the case did not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify mandamus relief, distinguishing it from precedent such as In re Arthur Andersen.

Mandamus ReliefResponsible Third Party DesignationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate RemedyWrongful Death SuitNegligence ClaimsGross NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1988

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

David H. Miller and William W. Shaffer ("Miller and Shaffer") moved to intervene individually and as representatives of participants in the Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan in an action filed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) against LTV Corporation and LTV Steel Company ("LTV"). LTV did not object to individual intervention but opposed class action intervention, arguing it would delay the PBGC action. The court granted the motion, allowing Miller and Shaffer to intervene both individually and as class representatives. The decision emphasized that Miller and Shaffer met the minimal burden of showing that PBGC's representation might be inadequate, as their interests, seeking full plan benefits, could diverge from PBGC's role as plan administrator. This opinion allows the class action to proceed under Rule 23(e), preventing dismissal or compromise without court approval.

InterventionERISAPension PlansBankruptcyClass ActionRule 24Rule 23(e)Adequate RepresentationPlan TerminationRestoration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rayex Corp. v. Sanchez

This case involves an action by plaintiffs Lenscraft Optical Corporation and Rayex Corporation to restrain defendant unions, Locals 1614 and 810, from striking and picketing. The plaintiffs also sought a temporary injunction and to prevent the unions from forcing recognition as a collective bargaining agent. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that another action between the same parties for the same cause was already pending. The court agreed with the defendants, finding the actions substantially identical and the new allegations suitable for a supplemental pleading in the existing case. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction.

Labor DisputePicketingStrikeTemporary InjunctionCollective BargainingMotion to DismissPrior Action PendingCivil ProcedureSupplemental PleadingJurisdiction
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02539 [204 AD3d 903]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Leighton v. Chaber, LLC

Michael Leighton (plaintiff) was allegedly injured on March 20, 2013, when he was struck in the eye by debris from a grinder tool while performing renovation work at a property owned by Chaber, LLC, and leased by Starbucks Corporation. He commenced actions against Chaber, LLC, and Starbucks Corporation, asserting violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) predicated upon 12 NYCRR 23-1.33. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court vacated its prior decision and granted the defendants' motions. The plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.33 does not apply to workers on a construction site, which was the plaintiff's status.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law12 NYCRR 23-1.33Personal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyDebris AccidentReargumentAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationScope of Regulation
References
4
Case No. 09-22-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Lexington Insurance Company v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation

This case from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal by Lexington Insurance Company against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation. Lexington challenged a summary judgment that awarded Exxon $25 million under an umbrella insurance policy. The dispute centered on whether Exxon qualified as an additional insured under a policy issued to Brock Services, LTD, and if specific policy exclusions for workers' compensation and employer's liability applied. The court affirmed the arbitration finding that Exxon was an additional insured but ultimately reversed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that the employer's liability exclusion applied, given Exxon's status as a statutory employer of Brock's injured employees through its Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP), thus entitling Exxon to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, Lexington was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Exxon, and the awards for damages, attorney's fees, and interest were reversed.

Insurance Policy CoverageUmbrella InsuranceWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer's Liability ExclusionExclusive RemedyOCIPStatutory EmployerAdditional Insured StatusArbitration ReviewSummary Judgment Reversal
References
33
Case No. 14-18-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2019

James Construction Group, LLC, Primoris Services Corporation v. Westlake Chemical Corporation

James Construction Group, LLC and Primoris Services Corporation appealed a judgment concerning contract claims with Westlake Chemical Corporation. Chemical had initially sued James for breach of a construction contract, citing safety violations and a failure to indemnify. The jury found James liable for breach of contract and indemnification, leading to damages and attorney's fees awarded against Primoris due to a guaranty. On appeal, the court affirmed the jury's findings on James's liability and the attorney's fees against Primoris. Crucially, the court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding James damages on its counterclaim, clarifying that a contractual waiver of consequential damages serves as an affirmative defense rather than a basis for a breach-of-contract claim.

Contract LawBreach of ContractConstruction ContractIndemnificationGuaranty AgreementAttorney's FeesConsequential DamagesWaiver of DamagesConditions PrecedentSubstantial Compliance
References
136
Case No. 13-02-415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Daimlerchrysler Corporation (f/K/A Chrysler Corporation), Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler v. Bill L. Inman, David Castro and John Wilkins, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

This case involves an interlocutory appeal filed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, challenging a trial court's certification of two nationwide classes. The plaintiffs are owners of DaimlerChrysler automobiles equipped with defective Gen-3 seatbelt buckles, alleging design defects leading to purely economic losses, but no physical injury or property damage. DaimlerChrysler contended the plaintiffs lacked standing under common-law torts, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) warranties. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiffs had standing, concluding they suffered a distinct, actual injury from insufficient product value, and that monetary damages would provide redress. However, the court reversed and remanded the class certification due to the trial court's failure to perform a proper choice-of-law analysis for nationwide claims.

Defective ProductsClass ActionStanding to SueEconomic LossSeatbelt DefectsTexas LawDTPAUCCBreach of WarrantyNegligence
References
96
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Victory Energy Corporation, Smart Gas, LLC, and HCP Investments, LLC v. Oz Gas Corporation

This case involves an appeal by three business associations (Appellants) challenging a trial court's decision that named Oz Gas Corporation (Appellee) as the true leaseholder of disputed oil and gas land in Crockett County, Texas. The Appellants were also assessed damages for bad faith trespass. The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of a Substitute Trustee's Deed concerning the conveyance of oil and gas leasehold interests. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that Oz Gas Corporation holds exclusive title to the West Unit of the disputed land. The court also found that Appellants committed bad faith mineral trespass by relying on an outdated title opinion and failing to conduct proper due diligence, and upheld the joint and several liability for damages.

Oil and Gas LeasesMineral RightsTrespass to Try TitleBad Faith TrespassDeed ConstructionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLeasehold InterestProration UnitsRailroad Commission
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 12,988 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