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

West v. Pratt

This appeal addresses the allocation of compensatory and punitive damages between a liability insurer and an uninsured motorist carrier in Tennessee. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the uninsured motorist carrier for plaintiffs Glenn and Shari West, challenged Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company's, the liability insurer for defendant Horace Pratt, decision to apportion its policy limits between compensatory and punitive damages. State Farm argued this allocation improperly shifted responsibility for punitive damages to them, a result prohibited by Tennessee public policy concerning uninsured motorist coverage. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, holding that a liability carrier must first satisfy compensatory damage awards to the extent of its limits before applying any funds to punitive damages, unless the policy explicitly states otherwise. This decision underscores the state's public policy against indirectly burdening uninsured motorist carriers with punitive damage obligations.

Allocation of damagesPunitive damagesCompensatory damagesUninsured motorist coverageUnderinsured motorist coverageLiability insuranceInsurance policy limitsPublic policyTennessee lawStatutory interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard P. Foley Co. v. Cox

Richard Cox sustained injuries while working with a defective electrical starter manufactured by Westinghouse at an Amoco Chemicals plant. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and strict products liability against multiple parties including Westinghouse, the general contractor C.F. Braun, and the plant owner Amoco. The jury found Westinghouse, Braun, and Amoco liable, with damages assessed at $400,000, and the trial court allocated these damages among them, requiring Howard P. Foley Company (Cox's employer and a subcontractor) to indemnify Amoco for one-third of the award and Westinghouse to pay two-thirds. Foley and Westinghouse appealed the damage allocation, raising points concerning contribution, indemnity, and evidentiary sufficiency. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's allocation method, upheld Braun's right to indemnity from Westinghouse, and modified the judgment to remove two Amoco employees who had no jury findings against them.

Personal InjuryStrict Products LiabilityNegligenceDamages AllocationIndemnityContributionWorker's CompensationComparative CausationContractual IndemnityDefective Product
References
15
Case No. W2023-00437-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2025

Sandra Easley v. City of Memphis

Plaintiff Sandra Easley was injured after being struck by a city-owned vehicle driven by a city employee while crossing a street outside a crosswalk. The trial court found the City of Memphis vicariously liable for employee negligence and directly liable for negligent hiring/retention, allocating 10% fault to Easley. This Court reversed, finding no proof of negligent hiring and concluding Easley was at least 50% at fault, barring recovery. The Tennessee Supreme Court vacated that judgment, citing a lack of deference to the trial court's factual findings. On remand, this Court affirms the finding of employee negligence, reverses the finding of direct negligent hiring, vacates the allocation of fault and damages, and remands the case for re-allocation of fault based only on vicarious liability and recalculation of damages with more specific findings.

Comparative FaultVicarious LiabilityNegligent HiringPedestrian AccidentMotor Vehicle AccidentAllocation of FaultDamages AssessmentCredibility DeterminationsStandard of ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri Valley, Inc. v. Putman

Haskell B. Putman, Jr., an employee of Missouri Valley, Inc., died after falling through an unbarricaded hole at a construction site in Potter County. His beneficiaries, including his widow Juanita Lucille Putman, brought a wrongful death action seeking exemplary damages from Missouri Valley, Inc., alleging gross negligence. The jury found Missouri Valley, Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded $50,000 in exemplary damages. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence findings. The court clarified that Texas law requires an "entire want of care" or "conscious indifference" to justify exemplary damages, which was not met given Missouri Valley's established safety program, thereby negating the recovery of exemplary damages.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Construction AccidentAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceSafety Program
References
7
Case No. E2012-02411-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2013

Margie R. Huskey v. Rhea County, Tennessee

Margie R. Huskey sustained a severe left arm injury at the Rhea County Convenience Center due to a fall from an uneven cinder-block wall. The trial court found Rhea County 51% at fault for negligence and Ms. Huskey 49% at fault, awarding her $152,172.09 for personal injury and Norman Huskey $12,750.00 for loss of consortium. The County appealed, challenging its liability, the fault allocation, and the awarded damages. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of the County's negligence in maintaining a dangerous condition, proper allocation of comparative fault, and appropriate compensatory damages for both plaintiffs, and remanded the case for enforcement.

NegligencePremises LiabilityGovernmental Tort Liability ActComparative FaultPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumDamagesMedical ExpensesPain and SufferingPermanent Injury
References
44
Case No. W2006-01967-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2008

Carl Anderson, Ed Howell Anderson, and Gary Anderson v. U.S.A. Truck, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation and Lonzie E. Neal

This case involves a vehicular accident where Carl, Ed Howell, and Gary Anderson were rear-ended by a truck driven by Lonzie E. Neal, an employee of U.S.A. Truck, Inc. The plaintiffs sought damages for personal injuries, including back and neck pain. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on punitive damages, and the jury awarded varying damages to the plaintiffs, reducing them by 30% due to comparative fault attributed to the driver, Mr. Anderson, which was imputed to all plaintiffs due to a joint venture finding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the punitive damages ruling, finding the joint venture error harmless, and supporting the jury's damage awards and fault allocation.

Vehicular AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceComparative FaultPunitive DamagesJoint Venture DoctrineJury VerdictDirected VerdictMedical TreatmentChronic Pain
References
25
Case No. 13-04-358-CV, 13-04-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Montemayor v. Ortiz

This consolidated appeal involves a declaratory judgment action and counterclaims for damages. Appellants G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham Jr. sought to collect a 1990 judgment against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by claiming Becky Ortiz's business, Schor's, was community property subject to levy. They obtained an ex parte receivership, prompting Ortiz to file counterclaims for wrongful conduct including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgments for Ortiz, ruling the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was her special community property, not liable for Celada's debt. A jury awarded Ortiz actual and punitive damages on her counterclaims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgments in favor of Ortiz, but reversed and rendered the judgment for damages, finding no legal sufficiency of evidence for any of Ortiz's tort claims, thereby also precluding punitive damages and mental anguish awards.

Declaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity PropertySpecial Community PropertyTortious ConductAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment Review
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,238 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