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. DC-15-604
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

City of Rio Grande City, Texas, and Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in Their Official Capacities v. BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP D/B/A Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley

BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley (Plaintiff) sued the City of Rio Grande, Texas and its elected officials (Defendants) after the City attempted to prematurely terminate its exclusive solid waste collection contract with Allied Waste and entered into an agreement with Grande Garbage Collection Co. (Intervenor/Plaintiff). Allied Waste sought a temporary injunction, arguing that the City's actions constituted a breach of contract and violated various constitutional rights, including the Contract Clause and Due Process. The District Court, presided over by Judge Migdalia Lopez, conditionally granted Allied Waste's request for a temporary injunction on November 10, 2015, restraining the City from interfering with Allied Waste's exclusive contractual rights. The defendants, including Grande Garbage Collection Co., are appealing this temporary injunction.

Contract DisputeExclusive FranchiseWaste ManagementMunicipal LawTexas LawConstitutional RightsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionBreach of Contract
References
31
Case No. 13-02-697-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2004

Alfred Martinez v. Wilson Plaza Associates, L.P. and Allied Waste Systems, Inc.

Alfred Martinez appealed a summary judgment ruling that declared he take nothing in his claims against Allied Waste Systems, Inc. Martinez had sued Allied for negligence and strict liability after being injured by a defective garbage dumpster. The appellate court first affirmed its jurisdiction over the appeal, determining the trial court's judgment was final. However, the court found that the trial court abused its discretion by implicitly overruling Martinez's special exceptions, which sought clarification on whether Allied's summary judgment motion was a no-evidence or traditional motion. This ambiguity denied Martinez fair notice of his evidentiary burdens, prejudicing his ability to respond adequately. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealAppellate JurisdictionNegligence ClaimStrict Liability ClaimSuccessor LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSpecial ExceptionsProcedural Due ProcessBurden of ProofTexas Civil Procedure
References
12
Case No. 16-CV-3812, 16-CV-5302
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Lighton Indus., Inc. v. Allied World Nat'l Assurance Co.

This case involves consolidated actions by Lighton Industries, Inc. and Hibuild Limited Liability Company against Allied World National Assurance Company and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment regarding the insurers' duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying personal injury action, the Tunkara Action, stemming from an August 16, 2014 accident at Brooklyn College. The court granted Lighton and Hibuild's motions for summary judgment, determining that Allied and Mt. Hawley owe a duty to defend the plaintiffs in the Tunkara Action. This decision was based on ambiguities in the insurance policies' Classification Limitation and Designated Ongoing Operations Exclusion, which were construed against the insurers. However, all motions for summary judgment concerning indemnification were denied, and these claims were dismissed without prejudice as premature, as liability in the underlying Tunkara Action had not yet been determined.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityPolicy ExclusionClassification LimitationOngoing Operations ExclusionSubcontractor Liability
References
73
Case No. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allied Industrial International, Inc. v. Placencio

Plaintiff, Jose Placencio, was severely injured when a grinding wheel on a bench grinder fractured, impacting his face and head. He and his wife, Frances Placencio, sued the distributors, Allied Industrial International, Inc. and Coast Industrial Exchange, Inc., alleging product defects including inadequate warnings and a defectively designed guard. Transamerica Insurance Company intervened to assert subrogation rights. The jury found Allied liable and awarded Placencio $650,000, which the trial court subsequently reduced. On appeal, Allied and Coast raised several points of error, including the failure to submit defensive issues on misuse and alteration. The appellate court affirmed the findings regarding the distributive chain and the damages award, but reversed and remanded the case due to the trial court's erroneous refusal to submit special issues concerning the defense of misuse and/or alteration.

Products liabilityGrinding wheelBench grinderDefective designWarning defectMisuse defenseComparative faultCausationDamagesRemand
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sims v. Western Waste Industries

David Sims, an employee of Western Waste Industries of Texas, Inc. (WWIT), injured his leg on the job and sued Western Waste Industries, Inc. (WWI), the parent corporation, along with Amrep, Inc., the truck manufacturer. WWI moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity as an alter ego of its subsidiary, WWIT, under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court initially granted WWI a separate trial on the immunity issue and subsequently granted its motion for summary judgment, leading Sims to appeal. Sims contended that Texas law does not permit reverse piercing of the corporate veil for a parent corporation to assert employer immunity. The appellate court agreed with Sims, reversing the trial court’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings, thus disallowing WWI from claiming Workers’ Compensation immunity.

Workers' CompensationCorporate VeilAlter EgoParent SubsidiaryEmployer ImmunityTexas LawSummary JudgmentAppealReverse PiercingIntentional Tort
References
18
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. Claim No. 134
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Crystal Apparel, Inc.

The Reorganized Debtor, Crystal Apparel, Inc., successfully objected to Claim No. 134 filed by the Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund, which sought $689,291.78 for alleged withdrawal liability. The Bankruptcy Court granted the Reorganized Debtor's motion for summary judgment, disallowing the claim. The court determined that the Fund's '1989 Rules' and '1991 Rules' for imposing withdrawal liability on the Social Insurance Fund were not lawfully adopted by the trustees or properly incorporated into the relevant agreements, thereby failing to satisfy the 'written agreement' requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5). The decision emphasized the principles of contract interpretation and cited a prior First Circuit case, Manchester Knitted Fashions, Inc. v. Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund, which similarly rejected the Fund's arguments.

Bankruptcy LawSummary Judgment MotionClaim DisallowanceMultiemployer PlansWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawTrust Fund AdministrationContract InterpretationLabor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,784 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