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
Aug 04, 1993

Tempesta v. City of New York

A plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while working for Confort & Company at premises owned by the New York City Industrial Development Agency. The plaintiff sued the Agency under Labor Law. The Agency initiated a third-party action against Confort for common-law contribution and indemnification. Confort, which had general liability insurance naming both itself and the Agency as insureds, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing the insurance waived the Agency's rights up to the policy limit. The Agency cross-moved to amend its complaint to assert contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court granted Confort's motion and denied the Agency's cross-motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Aetna policy covered Confort's indemnification liability, and an insurer cannot seek subrogation against its own insured for a covered risk.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law ContributionAdditional InsuredSubrogationInsurance PolicyWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyna v. Safeway Managing General Agency for State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

This appeal addresses a judgment against Reyna Insurance Agency entities for failing to forward suit papers, leading to a default judgment against Juan Antonio Alvarado. The appellate court reviewed several issues raised by the Reynas, including the award of breach of contract damages, settlement credits, and sanctions. The court reversed the trial court's award of breach of contract damages to the Ledesmas and the Rule 13 sanctions against the Reynas. It also modified the judgment to grant the Reynas a settlement credit for $75,000 paid by Safeway. The remainder of the trial court's judgment, including findings on mental anguish and DTPA/Insurance Code violations, was affirmed.

Insurance LawDTPAInsurance CodeBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyDefault JudgmentSettlement CreditRule 13 SanctionsMental AnguishProducing Cause
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. 10-94-174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1994

Agricultural Transportation Corporation v. Fortenberry Insurance Agency

Fortenberry Insurance Agency sued Agricultural Transportation, Inc. (ATI) for unpaid premiums on a specified-vehicle liability policy. The trial court found an oral contract existed where Fortenberry Insurance would obtain coverage and ATI would pay a reasonable premium, which ATI breached by failing to pay a $7,575.92 deficit, and awarded attorney's fees. ATI appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency of evidence for an oral contract or its breach. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of an agreement and breach based on the parties' conduct and custom, despite subjective disagreements on policy type.

Insurance Premium DisputeOral ContractBreach of ContractAttorney's Fees AwardSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate AffirmationContract InterpretationCustom and PracticeBusiness InsuranceLiability Policy
References
10
Case No. W2009-02668-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2010

Glenda Hampton v. Northwest Tennessee Human Resource Agency

This is a personal injury case stemming from an automobile accident where an employee of Northwest Tennessee Human Resource Agency backed a van into a vehicle driven by Glenda Hampton. Ms. Hampton sustained a right shoulder injury that eventually required arthroscopic surgery. While liability was stipulated, the defendant disputed causation. The trial court found the accident caused Ms. Hampton's shoulder injury and awarded her $102,552.40 in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings on both causation and the damage award.

Personal InjuryAutomobile AccidentCausation DisputeShoulder InjuryArthroscopic SurgeryRotator Cuff TearLabral TearMedical Expert CredibilityDamage Award ReviewPain and Suffering Damages
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abe I. Brilling Insurance Agency v. Hale

Abe I. Brilling Insurance Agency, the appellant, sued Glen Hale, doing business as South Lamar Iron & Steel, to collect unpaid premiums on workers' compensation and general liability insurance policies. Brilling initially brought the action as a suit on a sworn account under Tex.R.Civ.P. 185, seeking a judgment on the pleadings. The trial court denied Brilling's motion and ruled in favor of Hale, finding no agreement to pay the sums, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed the judgment because Brilling's petition did not present the account in the itemized form mandated by Rule 185, thus exempting Hale from its specific answer requirements. Consequently, Brilling's arguments regarding the sufficiency of Hale's answer were deemed irrelevant.

Sworn AccountInsurance PremiumsCivil ProcedureRule 185Pleading RequirementsDebt CollectionAppellate DecisionPrima Facie CaseItemized AccountWorkers' Compensation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blazer Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jim Cogdill Dodge Co.

This case involves an appeal by Jim Cogdill Dodge Company (Defendant) from a judgment for alleged unpaid insurance premiums owed to Blazer Insurance Agency, Inc. (Plaintiff). The dispute arose after Cogdill canceled insurance policies, citing non-delivery of policy documents and unresolved issues with premium calculations. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Blazer, holding Cogdill liable at a 'short rate' for cancellation. On appeal, the court found Cogdill was justified in canceling the policies due to Blazer's failure to deliver them and Cogdill's lack of notice regarding the termination of Blazer's agent. The judgment was modified, establishing Cogdill's liability for premiums from March 6, 1987, through July 15, 1987, calculated at a regular pro rata rate instead of the 'short rate' basis.

Insurance LawContract LawAgency LawCancellation of InsuranceInsurance PremiumsDelivery of PolicyVenue DisputeAppellate ReviewConstructive DeliveryAgent Authority
References
8
Case No. 03-02-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Public Utility Commission and City of Bryan

In this interlocutory appeal, the Texas Municipal Power Agency challenged a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order concerning the allocation of electricity transmission costs to the City of Bryan. Municipal Power Agency filed both an APA appeal and a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) claim, the latter of which was dismissed by the district court on grounds of sovereign immunity and duplication of remedies. The Court of Appeals reversed this dismissal, ruling that the UDJA waives sovereign immunity when interpreting an agency's general statutory authority, even if a parallel APA appeal addressing specific agency actions is ongoing. The court emphasized that the UDJA action sought a broader declaration of the Commission's fundamental authority, distinguishing it from merely challenging a particular agency order. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings on the declaratory judgment claim.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment Act (UDJA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Subject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPublic Utility CommissionElectricity Transmission RatesStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityDuplicate Remedies
References
35
Case No. 01-12-01177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2014

Bliss & Glennon Inc. v. Eugene Lyle Ashley and Ashley General Agency, LLC

Bliss & Glennon Inc. (B&G), an insurance broker, sued its former employee Eugene Lyle Ashley and Ashley General Agency, LLC, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims. Ashley and Ashley General counterclaimed, asserting negligence in data protection, invasion of privacy, and defamation, and sought to certify a class action for individuals whose sensitive personal information was allegedly discarded by B&G. The trial court certified a nationwide class, but B&G appealed. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the class certification order, ruling that B&G did not judicially admit liability and that Ashley failed to demonstrate commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation for the proposed class due to unique defenses and an antagonistic relationship with B&G.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealData Breach LitigationTrade Secret MisappropriationConfidential InformationAppellate ReviewStanding DoctrineClass Certification PrerequisitesJudicial AdmissionsTexas Civil Procedure
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 6,007 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