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

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) filed suit against Atlas Van Lines, Inc. for violating regulations related to owner-operator payments and escrow funds, stemming from issues with its agent, Thomas Van & Storage, Inc., which subsequently declared bankruptcy. Atlas conceded liability for past regulatory breaches but argued against a general injunction, contending that the issues with the bankrupt agent were moot and that it had implemented a new compliance program. The Court, however, found that Atlas had a history of consistent non-compliance, indicating a significant risk of future violations. Consequently, the Court granted the ICC's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Atlas to prevent further violations of ICC regulations.

Interstate Commerce CommissionAtlas Van LinesSummary JudgmentPermanent InjunctionMotor CarrierOwner-OperatorLeasing RegulationsEscrow FundsRegulatory ComplianceBankruptcy
References
27
Case No. 03-95-00439-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 1996

North American Van Lines, Inc. v. Melvin Houser and Marcella Houser

North American Van Lines, Inc. appealed a no-answer default judgment rendered in favor of Melvin Houser and Marcella Houser. The Housers sued North American, Perry Pierce d/b/a Pierce Moving and Storage, and Ben Holt after a fire destroyed Pierce's storage facility where their property was stored. The Housers claimed Pierce acted as North American's agent and alleged deceptive trade practices and negligence. The trial court severed Pierce and Holt, entering a default judgment against North American. The Court of Appeals reviewed three elements from the Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines rule: whether the failure to answer was intentional or due to conscious indifference, if North American presented a meritorious defense, and if setting aside the judgment would cause delay or injury. The court found North American met all three elements, concluding that its reliance on Pierce to file an answer was not consciously indifferent, that it presented a prima facie meritorious defense, and that the Housers failed to prove undue delay or injury. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for a trial on the merits.

Default JudgmentAppellate ProcedureMotion to Vacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceAgency LawDeceptive Trade Practices ActProperty LossFire DamageStorage Agreement
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07194 [167 AD3d 142]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp.

This appeal concerns an arbitration dispute between American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) and Allied Capital Corporation regarding insurance coverage for a $10.1 million settlement. An arbitration panel initially issued a Partial Final Award (PFA) on liability but later reconsidered and reversed its decision, leading to a corrected PFA and a final award. AISLIC petitioned to vacate these subsequent awards and confirm the original PFA. The Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority under the functus officio doctrine by reconsidering its prior final determination on liability. Consequently, the corrected PFA and the final award were vacated, and the original PFA was reinstated.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardVacaturInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrator AuthorityLiabilityDamages
References
32
Case No. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Allied Capital Corporation

This case addresses whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by reconsidering a "Partial Final Award" in an insurance dispute. The underlying dispute involved Ciena Capital LLC and Allied Capital Corporation seeking coverage from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) after settling a federal qui tam action. Initially, the arbitration panel issued a partial award, which was later reconsidered and corrected to grant both indemnification and defense costs. AISLIC challenged this reconsideration, arguing the panel was functus officio. The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division ruling, holding that the initial "Partial Final Award" was not truly final because the parties had not mutually agreed to its finality. Consequently, the arbitration panel was deemed to have acted within its authority by reconsidering its initial determination, and the petition to vacate the corrected award was denied.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardReconsiderationArbitrator AuthorityInsurance CoverageIndemnificationDefense CostsQui Tam ActionNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

SONG ROGERS (Deceased); RICHARD ROGERS, vs. ALLIED VAN LINES, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Case No. 2-08-132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2009

Elizabeth Santana, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rojelio Santana, and as Next Friend of Diana Santana, Rojelio Santana, Jr., Marissa Santana, Pauline Santana and Frederico Santana v. Arpin America Moving System, LLC and Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc.

Elizabeth Santana appealed the trial court's summary judgments for Arpin America Moving System, LLC (AAMS) and Paul Arpin Van Lines, Inc. (PAVL). Her husband, Rojelio Santana, an independent contractor, was killed in a truck accident while an unlicensed "lumper" he hired was driving a vehicle owned by AAMS and leased by PAVL. Santana alleged negligence, negligence per se, res ipsa loquitur, negligent entrustment, and gross negligence against AAMS and PAVL. The court found that Rojelio Santana was an independent contractor and not driving at the time of the accident, and that the "lumpers" were not employees of AAMS or PAVL, rendering Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) doctrines inapplicable. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding no evidence of causation linking any alleged negligence or FMCSR violations by AAMS or PAVL to the accident, nor any basis for negligent entrustment or res ipsa loquitur.

Summary Judgment AppealNegligence Per SeFMCSRStatutory EmployeeVicarious LiabilityNegligent EntrustmentProximate CauseIndependent ContractorWrongful DeathCommercial Vehicle Accident
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Van Lines, LLC v. Marks

This case involves a dispute over alleged loss and damage to household goods belonging to Steven and Joanmarie Marks, which were transported by United Van Lines, LLC. The Marks hired Import-Export International, Inc. (IEI) and Sullivan Moving & Storage Company to handle the packing, storage, and interstate shipment from Mexico to Texas. United Van Lines, as the interstate carrier, sought a declaratory judgment, asserting no liability because the Marks could not prove the goods were in good condition upon tender to United and that the goods were improperly packed. The Marks counter-argued that Sullivan acted as United's agent throughout the process. The Court granted United's Motion for Summary Judgment, concluding that the Marks failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish that their goods were delivered to United in good condition, an essential element for a prima facie claim under the Carmack Amendment.

Carmack AmendmentInterstate Commerce ActSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentHousehold GoodsDamaged GoodsLost GoodsAgencyBill of LadingPreponderance of Evidence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Service Sign Erectors Co. v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Plaintiff Service Sign, a subcontractor, initiated an action for damages in breach of contract or quantum meruit against Allied, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, after a billboard Allied had contracted to build for the Authority collapsed due to insufficient support. Allied subsequently filed a third-party action against the Authority, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted dismissal of the first cause of action in the third-party complaint but denied dismissal for the second and third causes of action. On appeal, the higher court modified this decision, ruling that implied indemnification was not available to Allied. The court found that the existing contract between Allied and the Authority explicitly provided for one-way indemnification from Allied to the Authority, thereby precluding any reciprocal implied obligation. Consequently, the appellate court granted the dismissal of all three causes of action in Allied's third-party complaint against the Authority, affirming the modification without costs.

IndemnificationImplied IndemnificationExpress ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubcontractorAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. 04-08-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2009

Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam v. Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of the Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication across land owned by Appellants Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming an easement for the benefit of the public and subdivision lot owners. However, the appellate court found that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use. The court concluded that mere acquiescence to use by neighbors, without additional factors implying donative intent, was not sufficient to prove an implied dedication. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that the property is not subject to an easement by implied dedication.

Property LawEasement by Implied DedicationAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentReal Estate DisputeDonative IntentPublic UseLand SubdivisionTexas LawLake Access
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hebert v. Pan American Van Lines, Inc.

Fred Hebert appealed a jury verdict in a negligence action, where he was awarded $1,770.30 for personal injuries sustained on the job. Hebert was struck by a post from a van owned by Pan American Van Lines, Inc. Hebert argued that the jury's compensation of $1,967.00 for his injuries was grossly inadequate. The incident occurred at the Diamond Shamrock Plant in Deer Park, Texas, where Hebert and a co-worker were checking cargo. The jury found all three parties negligent, with Hebert 10% negligent, resulting in the reduced award. The appellate court reviewed the evidence and affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the verdict not manifestly wrong or unjust due to contradictory evidence regarding Hebert's injuries and prior conditions.

NegligencePersonal InjuryJury VerdictAppealFactual InsufficiencyAdequate CompensationPre-existing ConditionsContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceTrial Court Affirmation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 961 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