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. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. 14-07-00953-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2009

Lowe's Home Centers Inc & Natasha Tanner v. GSW Marketing, Inc. F/K/A Salesmaker, Inc. D/B/A CSA Services Southwest and Snow Mountain Construction, Inc

Natasha Tanner, an employee of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., was injured when a toilet tank fell from an elevated display and struck her head. She, along with Lowe's which intervened to assert subrogation rights, sued multiple entities including Snow Mountain Construction, Inc. (who built the display) and GSW Marketing, Inc. f/k/a Salesmakers, Inc. d/b/a CSA Services Southwest (who maintained the display) for negligent activity and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Snow Mountain and Salesmakers. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Tanner provided no evidence that either company had a duty to discover the toilet was incorrectly assembled or that they were engaged in ongoing negligent activities at the time of her injury. The court determined that the defendants' contractual obligations did not extend to inspecting the internal assembly of the toilets.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationDuty to InspectIndependent ContractorDisplay AssemblyProduct SafetyCausationTexas Appellate Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian Fay Construction, Inc. v. Morstan General Agency, Inc.

Brian Fay Construction, Inc. (plaintiff) contracted with J.E Spano and Company, agreeing to indemnify Spano. The plaintiff then instructed its insurance agents, DFW Associates, Inc. and Douglass Fenning (together DFW), and later Morstan General Agency, Inc., to add Spano as an additional insured to its general liability policy with Burlington Insurance Company. An employee of Brian Fay Construction was injured, leading to a claim against Spano and a third-party action against the plaintiff. Burlington denied coverage, citing an employee exclusion and stating there was no evidence Spano was an additional insured. The plaintiff sued the agents for failing to properly procure insurance, seeking a declaration that they were obligated to defend and indemnify. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that Burlington would have been obligated to cover the claim even if Spano had been properly named as an additional insured.

Insurance Broker LiabilityAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentDuty to Procure InsuranceIndemnificationGeneral Liability PolicyEmployee Liability ExclusionAppellate ReviewConstruction ContractInsurance Coverage Dispute
References
6
Case No. W2012-01309-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2013

Andrea Blackwell and Frederick Blackwell, Co-Conservators for the Estate and Person of Robert Blackwell v. Comanche Construction, Inc. and Comanche Construction of Georgia, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal arose from a lawsuit filed by Andrea and Frederick Blackwell, co-conservators for Robert Blackwell, against Comanche Construction, Inc. after Robert sustained debilitating injuries on a job site. Comanche, a subcontractor, argued it was a statutory employer of Blackwell and thus immune from tort liability under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court denied Comanche's summary judgment motion, finding it was not a statutory employer. The Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal, concluding that the threshold issue of whether Ford Construction Company, Blackwell's direct employer, was a subcontractor of Comanche was not addressed by the lower court and was outside the scope of the certified appellate question, thus precluding a decision on the statutory employer issue. The case was therefore remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory EmployerInterlocutory Appeal DismissalRemand OrderSubcontractor DefinitionTort ImmunityCrane Accident LitigationPersonal Injury ClaimsSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
27
Case No. 04-17-00565-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

David Mora, Texas Sterling Construction Co. A/K/A Texas Crushed Concrete, and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. A/K/A Sterling Delaware Holding Company, Inc. v. Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, Both Individually and as Sole Heirs of the Estate of Martin Valdivia Jr.

This appeal stems from a personal injury lawsuit where two construction workers were injured and one killed when an unsecured toolbox fell from their foreman's trailer. The plaintiffs, Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, sued the foreman David Mora and employers Texas Sterling Construction Co. and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found the driver of the third vehicle not negligent and Texas Sterling grossly negligent, awarding substantial damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions on the course and scope of employment, the defense of sudden emergency, and gross negligence attributable to Texas Sterling through its Corporate Safety Director, José González.

Personal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActCourse and Scope of EmploymentSudden Emergency DefenseEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDamagesLegal Sufficiency
References
55
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 05-0558
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2007

Reliance National Indemnity Company, L&T, J v. and Lamar Construction, Inc. v. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc.

This case addresses whether a temporary employment agency, Advance’d Temporaries, Inc., 'furnishes labor' under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code, thereby qualifying for a mechanic's lien. The dispute arose from Advance’d supplying workers to a subcontractor, Gonzalez Construction, for a project overseen by general contractor Lamar Construction, Inc. After Gonzalez failed to pay Advance’d, Advance’d claimed a mechanic's lien, which the trial court denied but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals, holding that Advance’d did furnish labor because it acted as the employer of the temporary workers, responsible for their hiring, payment, and insurance, despite not controlling their daily work. The Court rejected the application of the borrowed-employee doctrine in this contractual context, affirming Advance'd's entitlement to a mechanic's lien.

Mechanic's LienTemporary EmploymentLabor LawConstruction ContractsEmployer StatusTexas Property CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySubcontractor Payment
References
6
Case No. E1998-00535-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 1999

Jerry Duncan Ford, Inc. v. J. Roy Frost, d/b/a Frost Construction Company

This case consolidates three breach of contract actions stemming from major renovations to an automobile dealership. Jerry Duncan Ford, Inc. sued its general contractor, J. Roy Frost d/b/a Frost Construction Company, for unsatisfactory performance, while Frost counter-sued for breach of contract. A third party, Customer Service Electric Supply, Inc., sued Jerry Duncan Ford, Frost, and the Duncans for unpaid light fixtures. The trial court found an oral guaranteed maximum price of $313,200 by Frost and awarded damages to Jerry Duncan Ford for costs exceeding this guarantee and for defective workmanship. Customer Service also received damages against Frost but its claim against Jerry Duncan Ford and the Duncans was dismissed for lack of proof. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, concluding that parol evidence was properly admitted, that the evidence supported the finding of a guaranteed price, and that Frost had sufficient notice and opportunity to cure defects.

Breach of contractConstruction disputesGuaranteed maximum priceParol evidence ruleWitness credibilityQuantum meruitSubcontractor claimsConstruction defectsContract terminationAppellate review
References
13
Case No. E2017-00844-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2019

Vic Davis Construction, Inc. v. Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc.

A subcontractor (Vic Davis Construction, Inc.) sued the general contractor (Lauren Engineers & Constructors, Inc.) for breach of contract and Prompt Pay Act violations, seeking damages and contract reformation. The trial court reformed the subcontract due to mutual mistake and granted summary judgment to the general contractor on fraud and punitive damages claims. Following a bench trial, the subcontractor was awarded judgment on its breach of contract claim, and the general contractor's counterclaim was dismissed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, finding no error in the dismissal of fraud and punitive damages claims, upholding the finding that the general contractor committed the first material breach, and affirming decisions under the Prompt Pay Act.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractPrompt Pay ActSubcontractorGeneral ContractorMutual MistakeSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsPunitive DamagesAppellate Review
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 16,077 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