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. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 04-15-00021-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Adjustment of the City of San Antonio v. Michael and Theresa Hayes

The County Court reversed the Board of Adjustment's action regarding Appeal No. A-14-049. This reversal means that the City of San Antonio Permit No. 1951114 to construct a guardrail remains revoked. Additionally, the Board of Adjustment's action from January 13, 2014, in Case Number A-13-0732 remains final. The court also denied the Board of Adjustment's plea to the jurisdiction and their objection to the evidence.

Zoning DisputeAdministrative AppealBuilding PermitsLocal GovernmentProperty RightsJudicial ReviewTexas LawGuardrail RegulationCode EnforcementSan Antonio
References
6
Case No. 3-92-291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 1993

Ronald David Patton v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Jean Auvenshine and American International Adjustment Company, Inc.

Ronald David Patton sued National Union Fire Insurance Company, Jean Auvenshine, and American International Adjustment Company, Inc., alleging violations of the duty of good faith and fair dealing related to his workers' compensation claim. Patton had injured his back in 1985, and his claim was formally denied by National Union in June 1987. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of the appellees, ruling that Patton's suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, holding that the cause of action accrued at the time of the denial of coverage in June 1987, and that the tort was not a continuous one, nor was the statute of limitations tolled by subsequent events or the involvement of an adjuster.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Bad FaithStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Court of AppealsDenial of CoverageAccrual of Cause of ActionContinuous TortInsurance Adjuster Liability
References
4
Case No. M2017-00862-COA-R3-CV, T20140069, T20140070
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2018

In Re Estate of Sylvia Marene Tolbert v. State ot Tennessee

Claimants Sylvia Marlene Tolbert and Alvin Wayne Tindell asserted monetary claims against the State of Tennessee for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an automobile accident with a state employee. The Tennessee Claims Commission found the State liable and awarded compensatory damages based on the claimants’ unadjusted medical bills. The State appealed, arguing that the Claims Commission erred by not considering insurance adjustments to medical bills. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the collateral source rule precludes the introduction of evidence of insurance adjustments and that the term 'actual damages' in the Tennessee Claims Commission Act is synonymous with 'compensatory damages', thus not abrogating the common law collateral source rule. Therefore, the unadjusted medical bills were properly used to calculate damages.

Collateral Source RuleMedical Expenses DamagesInsurance AdjustmentsTennessee Claims Commission ActPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentState Employee LiabilityCompensatory DamagesActual DamagesStatutory Abrogation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heinsohn v. Trans-Con Adjustment Bureau

Robert Heinsohn sued his former employer, Trans-Con Adjustment Bureau, alleging wrongful termination after suffering a work-related injury, claiming the company discharged him to avoid a workers' compensation claim. The trial court granted the company's motion for a directed verdict, citing no evidence of damages. Heinsohn appealed this decision. The appellate court found sufficient evidence of damages, including lost wages and medical expenses, to overcome a directed verdict. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, asserting that a jury should have been allowed to consider the evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawDirected VerdictDamagesLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewTexas LawBurden of Proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. 13-09-00128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation

The case involves an appeal by Petroleum Solutions, Inc. (PSI) against Bill Head d/b/a Bill Head Enterprises (Head) and Titeflex, Inc., regarding a jury verdict stemming from a significant diesel fuel leak at Head's truck stop. PSI challenged trial court sanctions for spoliation of evidence, and findings related to Head's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, as well as Titeflex's indemnification claims. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Head and Titeflex, finding sufficient evidence for PSI's breach of duties and product liability. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment interest.

Diesel leakUnderground storage tankEnvironmental regulationsSpoliation of evidenceFiduciary dutyBreach of contractFraudIndemnificationProduct liabilityAttorney's fees
References
153
Case No. 11-08-00110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Great Western Drilling, Limited v. Bill Alexander

Great Western Drilling, Limited, appealed a take-nothing verdict in its suit against attorney Bill Alexander. Great Western claimed Alexander conspired with his client, Marilyn Paschal, to convert insurance proceeds that Great Western asserted were its equitable property, purchased with embezzled funds. The case stemmed from an earlier suit where Great Western sued Paschal for embezzlement and sought a constructive trust on the proceeds. The trial court severed claims against Alexander. At trial, the jury found that Alexander did not have notice that Great Western owned the insurance proceeds, leading to a verdict in Alexander's favor. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the jury's lack of notice finding was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and any error regarding expert testimony was not reversible. Alexander's cross-appeal for sanctions was also denied.

ConversionInsurance ProceedsAttorney LiabilityFraudEmbezzlementNoticeJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. 04-07-00859-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2009

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Bill Hibdon

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim where Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific) contested the compensability of an injury claimed by Bill Hibdon. The core issue was whether Pacific had waived its right to contest compensability by allegedly failing to timely send notice of refusal to pay benefits to Hibdon, as required by the version of Texas Labor Code § 409.021(a) in effect at the time. The trial court affirmed an appeals panel decision, concluding Pacific had waived its right due to Hibdon's non-receipt of timely notice. However, citing Sw. Bell Tel. v. Mitchell, the appellate court determined that failure to send or receive notice within the statutory seven-day period does not constitute a waiver of the insurer's right to contest compensability. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Pacific, holding it did not waive its right.

Workers' CompensationWaiverInsurance CarrierNotice of RefusalCompensabilityTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentReversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landmark Chevrolet Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (the dealerships) against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company (Universal). The dealerships sought to overturn a judgment declaring that Universal had no duty to defend them in two underlying class-action lawsuits. These lawsuits, brought by customers, alleged violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud related to a 'Consumer Services Fee.' Universal denied coverage under the Statute and Title E&O (STEO) policy, arguing that the underlying petitions did not allege truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing violations as required by the policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in Universal's favor, upholding the application of the 'eight-corners' rule and declining to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-LendingTruth-in-LeasingDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentExtrinsic EvidenceAutomobile SalesClass Action
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,820 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