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. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. 12-13-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Robert Doe, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Karen Phillips

Guy Sparkman appealed the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation and others. Sparkman alleged that Microsoft's representatives remotely accessed his computer and caused issues, which he believed was part of a scheme to coerce him into purchasing updated software. He filed a suit based on breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court declared Sparkman a vexatious litigant and dismissed his suit for failing to furnish a required $7,500 security. On appeal, Sparkman raised six issues, including challenges to judicial authority and bias, the constitutionality of the vexatious litigant statute, and due process. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling all of Sparkman's arguments.

Vexatious LitigantDismissalAppealConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionJudicial RecusalJudicial AuthorityPro Se Litigant
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Security Union Casualty Co. v. Hunt

Raymond Hunt, a member of an oil well drilling crew, sustained an injury, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The central dispute revolved around identifying his true employer—either Bridwell and Mayfield or Adams, Brown, and McAlister—to determine which insurance carrier, Security Union Casualty Company or Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, was liable. The Industrial Accident Board initially ruled against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. Subsequently, a district court judgment, agreed upon by the parties, placed liability on Security Union Casualty Company, which then initiated this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding that Hunt was an employee of Bridwell and Mayfield, thereby upholding Security Union Casualty Company's liability, concluding that Adams acted as an agent for Bridwell and Mayfield during the drilling operations.

Worker's CompensationEmployer LiabilityAgency LawOil and Gas IndustryEmployee Status DeterminationInsurance Coverage DisputeJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil AppealsIndustrial Accident Board
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Technologies Communications Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3

This case involves a damage action brought by United Technologies Communication Company (UTCC), formerly General Dynamics Communications Company (GDCC), against Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), under Section 303 of the National Labor Relations Act. UTCC alleged that Local 3 engaged in illegal secondary boycotts and jurisdictional disputes at two New York City sites, One Broadway and Two Broadway, in violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Act. The court found Local 3 liable, concluding that its members, agents, and executive board supported and ratified unlawful actions, including work stoppages, threats, vandalism, and harassment, aimed at forcing employers to cease business with GDCC and assign work to Local 3 members. While liability was established, the plaintiff's claim for lost sales to potential customers was denied due to insufficient proof of direct causation. The decision concludes the liability phase of the trial, with a second phase to be scheduled for the determination of damages.

Labor Law ViolationSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputeNational Labor Relations ActTaft-Hartley ActUnion LiabilityAgency PrinciplesCollateral EstoppelDamage ActionNon-Jury Trial
References
45
Case No. NO. 02-12-00517-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) v. Agent Systems, Inc.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Agent Systems, Inc. The core dispute involved a contract for validating fareboxes, which DART and the T eventually ceased work on, leading Agent Systems to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and later sue for damages under a termination for convenience clause. The appellate court reviewed issues regarding the standard of review, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence, and the award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits, finding sufficient evidence that DART and the T breached the contract by improperly terminating it for default instead of for convenience. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, adjusting the rate from six to five percent and requiring the trial court to redetermine the accrual date.

Breach of ContractGovernment ContractTermination for ConvenienceTermination for DefaultJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestContractual DisputeAdministrative Remedies
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erwin v. Rose

This case addresses the liability of a municipality and its agents under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, as well as the liability of an underinsured motorist carrier. Ms. Erwin's parents filed a wrongful death action after their daughter was killed in a high-speed chase involving Deputy Mike Rose of Maury County. The court apportioned fault between Deputy Rose and Tracy Joe Lovell, limiting Maury County's liability to $130,000 and dismissing claims against Deputy Rose. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the underinsured motorist carrier, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., finding that payments from other tort-feasors reduce the carrier's coverage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions on municipal and agent liability and the dismissal of the underinsured motorist claim, but reversed the award of prejudgment interest as it exceeded the statutory liability limit for the municipality. A petition to rehear was subsequently overruled.

Governmental Tort Liability ActUnderinsured Motorist CoverageWrongful DeathHigh-Speed ChasePolice MisconductMunicipal LiabilityDeputy Sheriff LiabilityPrejudgment InterestInsurance Policy LimitsCivil Rights Violations
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 1995

Granieri v. 500 Fifth Avenue Associates

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). The court denied defendant 500 Fifth Avenue Associates' cross-motion to amend their answer to include Workers' Compensation as an exclusive remedy and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The denial was based on evidence that control and supervision over the plaintiff was exercised by Newmark Real Estate, Inc., the defendant's managing agent, refuting the claim that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendant. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on the owner for injuries due to a failure to provide proper equipment, and the plaintiff's possible culpable conduct regarding ladder placement would not defeat the claim. Additionally, the court found no error in refusing to reinstate the third affirmative defense given the two-year delay in serving the verification of the bill of particulars.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilitySpecial EmployeePremises LiabilityAffirmative DefenseCulpable ConductLadder AccidentAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,648 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