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

Baty v. ProTech Insurance Agency

This case concerns a dispute between an insurance agency, Baty & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. (BAI), and its shareholder Rick D. Baty, against former officers Connie Suzanne Malliaros and Treva C. Neill, their new company ProTech Insurance Agency, and four insurance companies: Aetna, Hartford, AMS, and Fidelity. The appellants alleged breach of fiduciary duties, wrongful diversion of business, tortious interference with contracts and prospective business relationships, and civil conspiracy. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's summary judgments, which were largely in favor of the defendants. The court reversed the summary judgment regarding tort claims against Malliaros, Neill, and ProTech, and for Hartford on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, remanding these for further proceedings. However, it affirmed the summary judgments for the other insurance companies on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, and for all insurance companies on claims of tortious interference with existing contracts, inducing breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, clarifying that the prior settlement and rescission agreement did not release the tort claims.

Insurance LawFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceContract LawCivil ConspiracyRescissionRehearing OpinionEmployment RelationshipBusiness Disparagement
References
65
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08926 [156 AD3d 1192]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Cromer v. Rosenzweig Insurance Agency Inc.

Plaintiff, Bradley E. Cromer, as assignee, sued Rosenzweig Insurance Agency Inc. and other defendants for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, alleging failure to procure appropriate insurance coverage for his assignors, Allen Skriloff and SOS 1031 Properties 112, LLC. The lawsuit stemmed from a workplace injury where the assignors' insurance carrier disclaimed coverage due to an employee exclusion. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the insurance agency, finding the assignors were presumed to know their policy's contents. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a specific request for the excluded coverage or establish a 'special relationship' with the broker that would impose a higher duty of advisement beyond the written notice provided.

Insurance Broker LiabilityNegligenceBreach of ContractFraudMaterial MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSpecial RelationshipDuty to AdviseCommercial General Liability
References
11
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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1992

Shelton Insurance Agency v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal by Shelton Insurance Agency and John M. Roberts against St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company regarding the alleged mishandling of an insurance claim. Shelton Agency initially sued St. Paul for violations of the DTPA, Texas Insurance Code, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after St. Paul denied coverage to its customer, Frio Drilling Company. A jury found in favor of Shelton Agency, awarding actual and exemplary damages, but the trial court granted St. Paul's motion for judgment n.o.v. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the DTPA, insurance code, breach of good faith, and punitive damages claims. However, it reversed and rendered the judgment on the breach of contract claim, ruling that Shelton Agency was entitled to recover $34,000 for premiums it wrote off.

Insurance LawAgency LiabilityBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingDTPATexas Insurance CodeDenial of CoverageInsurance Bad FaithPunitive DamagesJudgment N.O.V.
References
30
Case No. 03-04-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. v. the Texas FAIR Plan Association The Texas Department of Insurance And Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance

Appellant Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Texas FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Al Boenker had challenged a bulletin issued by FAIR Plan, which restricted fees insurance agencies could charge for homeowners insurance applications and allowed for termination of agencies violating the contract. Al Boenker argued that FAIR Plan violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and exceeded its statutory authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that FAIR Plan is not a state agency subject to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions and acted within its authority derived from the FAIR Plan Act and its Plan of Operation by contractually limiting agent compensation and establishing conditions for agent termination.

Administrative LawInsurance LawContract LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAgency AuthoritySeparation of PowersStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hastings v. South Central Human Resource Agency

This is an appeal regarding the termination of two employees, Hart Hastings and Teri Laster, by the South Central Human Resource Agency (SCHRA). The trial court found SCHRA acted illegally, arbitrarily, and capriciously in summarily discharging the plaintiffs without proper notice and hearing, ordering their reinstatement with back pay. SCHRA appealed, arguing it is not a state agency, the Grievance Committee hearing did not violate the "Sunshine Law" (Open Meetings Act), and the trial court erred in interpreting its personnel policies regarding misconduct. The appellate court determined SCHRA is a state agency, but reversed the trial court's finding that the Grievance Committee violated the Sunshine Law, stating the committee was not a "governing body." Furthermore, the appellate court found the Grievance Committee did not act fraudulently, illegally, or arbitrarily in upholding the terminations, as "falsification of records" and "improper program management" could be construed as misconduct justifying immediate dismissal under SCHRA's policies.

Government agency statusEmployee terminationDue processPersonnel policiesAdministrative lawOpen meetings actSunshine lawJudicial reviewMisconductFalsification of records
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,525 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