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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2015

American Civil Rights Union v. Martinez-Rivera

The American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) sued Zavala County Tax Assessor-Collector Cindy Martinez-Rivera for violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by allegedly failing to maintain accurate voter rolls, indicated by a 105% registration rate. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss challenging ACRU's standing and the sufficiency of the claim, while Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Collis White recommended denying both motions, finding ACRU had organizational standing and stated a plausible claim. District Judge Alia Moses adopted the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, consequently denying both the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint.

Voter RegistrationNational Voter Registration ActOrganizational StandingMotion to DismissMotion to Amend ComplaintVoter Rolls MaintenanceZavala CountyTexas Election LawSubject Matter JurisdictionConstitutional Standing
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medafrica Line, S.P.A. v. American West African Freight Conference

On March 20, 1984, Medafrica Line, S.P.A. (Medafrica) obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the American West African Freight Conference (AWAFC) from collecting a $9,118,301 penalty. As a condition, Medafrica posted a $150,000 bond issued by the Insurance Company of North America (INA). The injunction was contingent on the outcome of Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) proceedings and any subsequent arbitration. On February 18, 1986, the FMC dismissed Medafrica's administrative complaint with prejudice, and the time for appeal or arbitration expired. AWAFC subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, dismiss the action, and seek judgment for $150,000 against INA on the bond, arguing they were wrongfully enjoined. The court found that AWAFC was indeed wrongfully enjoined and suffered damages because Medafrica became insolvent during the injunction's pendency, preventing AWAFC from collecting the penalty. Therefore, the court granted AWAFC's motions, dissolving the preliminary injunction, dismissing the action, and holding INA liable to AWAFC for $150,000 on the injunction bond.

Preliminary InjunctionInjunction BondWrongful InjunctionDamagesBankruptcySuretyFederal Maritime CommissionFed.R.Civ.P. 65(c)Fed.R.Civ.P. 65.1Collection
References
4
Case No. 03-00-00545-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2001

American Home Assurance Co. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Christopher D. Huebner

American Home Assurance Co. sought judicial review of an administrative order from the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) that preauthorized medical treatment for Christopher Huebner. The district court granted the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting American had no inherent or statutory right to judicial review. American appealed, arguing for an inherent right based on due process under the United States and Texas Constitutions and a statutory right under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that American had sufficiently pleaded an inherent right to judicial review based on due process and should be given an opportunity to amend its pleadings to demonstrate jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Due processJudicial reviewPlea to jurisdictionAdministrative lawWorkers' compensationMedical benefits disputePreauthorizationVested property interestPleading sufficiencyRemand
References
16
Case No. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Risk Funding Insurance Co. Ex Rel. Continental Casualty Co. v. Lambert

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment concerning a workers' compensation carrier's waiver of subrogation rights. Larry Lambert, Rogers Patino, and Andres Garcia (appellees), employees of U.S. Contractors, Inc., were injured in a chemical plant explosion and settled with third-party defendants (Memc Pasadena, Inc., J.E. Merit Contractors, Inc., and Albemarle Corporation) for $1.8 million. American Risk Funding Insurance Company (appellant), the workers' compensation carrier for U.S. Contractors, Inc., intervened to seek reimbursement for benefits paid, but Lambert denied the claim due to a prior contract waiving subrogation rights. The trial court granted Lambert's motion for summary judgment, which American Risk Funding appealed. The appellate court addressed five issues raised by the appellant, primarily concerning the validity and scope of the subrogation waiver, including arguments about public policy, lack of consideration, intent to benefit appellees, waiver of future benefits, and common law conversion. The court systematically overruled all of appellant's issues, concluding that the waiver of subrogation does not violate public policy, does not require separate consideration, was intended to apply as contracted, waives rights to future credits, and extinguishes common law claims related to subrogation. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court affirming the summary judgment in favor of Lambert was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverSummary Judgment AppealPublic PolicyContract LawTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsEmployee RightsThird-Party LiabilityReimbursement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re American National Insurance Co.

Inocencia Liano, an American National Insurance Company employee, was terminated and subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Texas Labor Code. American National sought to compel arbitration based on provisions in a collective-bargaining agreement and an individual Agent’s Agreement, which the trial court denied. American National then filed a writ of mandamus, requesting this court to order the trial judge, the Honorable Linda Y. Chew, to grant their motion to compel arbitration. Citing established precedent such as Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., this court affirmed that a collective-bargaining agreement cannot prospectively waive an individual employee’s statutory rights. Consequently, finding no clear abuse of discretion by the trial court, the mandamus relief requested by American National was denied.

MandamusArbitration AgreementAge DiscriminationTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Employee Statutory RightsUnion DiscretionJudicial ForumAppellate Review
References
15
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. No. M2018-01696-COA-R3-CV; No. 15-4-IV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

American Board of Craniofacial Pain v. American Board Of Orofacial Pain

This case involves an appeal concerning a failed merger between two professional dental associations, American Board of Craniofacial Pain (ABCP) and American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP). ABCP sued ABOP, alleging a breach of an agreement to merge formed through email exchanges and seeking specific performance and damages. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted summary judgment to ABOP, finding no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable contract. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the parties’ objective manifestations showed a lack of mutual assent because an essential term (disposition of intellectual property) was not agreed upon and they intended to reduce the agreement to a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which was never finalized. The court also agreed that specific performance was not an available remedy due to the incompleteness of the purported contract.

Contract DisputeMerger NegotiationsCorporate MergerDental ProfessionMutual AssentSpecific Performance DenialSummary Judgment AffirmationTennessee Court of AppealsContract FormationLack of Agreement
References
26
Case No. 08-07-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2007

in Re: American National Insurance Company

In Re: American National Insurance Company, Relator, sought a writ of mandamus to compel arbitration of an an age discrimination claim filed by Inocencia Liano against American National. Liano's claim, alleging violations of the Texas Labor Code, was initially denied arbitration by the 327th Judicial District Court. The appellate court, referencing *Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.*, determined that an arbitration provision in a collective-bargaining agreement and an individual Agent's Agreement could not prospectively waive an employee's statutory rights, particularly when union discretion controlled the arbitration process. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, thus denying the mandamus relief requested by American National.

ArbitrationAge DiscriminationTexas Labor LawMandamusCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Arbitration ActEmployee Statutory RightsUnion ControlEmployment LitigationJudicial Discretion
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

John Gibson, a seaman, suffered a heart attack in 1970 while working aboard the vessel Seawitch. His wife, Anna Gibson, subsequently initiated an action in February 1977 against his employer, American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, claiming damages for loss of consortium. American Export sought to dismiss her complaint, contending that spouses of injured seamen lacked a claim for loss of consortium under general maritime law at the time, and that the landmark Supreme Court decision in American Export Lines v Alvez (1980), which established this right, should not be retroactively applied. The court thoroughly reviewed the evolution of maritime law concerning loss of consortium, referencing key decisions such as Moragne (1970), Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (1974), and Alvez (1980). Ultimately, the court denied American Export's motion, ruling that the Alvez decision should be applied retroactively to cases like Mrs. Gibson's, where the plaintiff was actively challenging existing legal precedents prior to the Alvez ruling.

RetroactivityLoss of ConsortiumMaritime LawSeaman's RightsPersonal InjuryGeneral Maritime LawSpousal ClaimsFederal Maritime LawAppellate ReviewTort Law
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 8,987 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