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
Jul 24, 1987

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. American National Petroleum Co. Ex Rel. Oil Investments, Ltd.

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line, Inc. (TRANSCO) appealed a judgment favoring American National Petroleum Co. (ANPC) and Oil Investments, Ltd. (Oil Investments) concerning breaches of gas purchase contracts and tortious interference. The appellate court reformed the trial court's judgment. It deleted a $16 million award for exemplary damages due to the lack of a finding of actual tort damages, and adjusted other contract damages, restoring jury findings for minimum-take obligations. Awards from a post-judgment contempt order were also deleted. The court dismissed portions of TRANSCO's appeal related to a temporary injunction for jurisdictional reasons and severed the attorney's fees award, remanding it for a rehearing to properly segregate fees for contract and tort claims. The permanent injunction was also modified by deleting price-related provisions, as these were governed by contractual sole remedy clauses.

Oil and Gas LawContract LawBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceExemplary DamagesAttorney's FeesMarket-Out ClauseTake-or-Pay ContractGas Balancing AgreementAppellate Review
References
59
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Lennar Corporation, Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Limited, and Lennar Homes of Texas Sales and Marketing, Limited, D/B/A Village Builders v. Great American Insurance Company, American Dynasty Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company Gerling America Insurance Company, RLI Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and Westchester Fire Ins Company

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Case No. No. M2018-01696-COA-R3-CV; No. 15-4-IV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

American Board of Craniofacial Pain v. American Board Of Orofacial Pain

This case involves an appeal concerning a failed merger between two professional dental associations, American Board of Craniofacial Pain (ABCP) and American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP). ABCP sued ABOP, alleging a breach of an agreement to merge formed through email exchanges and seeking specific performance and damages. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted summary judgment to ABOP, finding no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable contract. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the parties’ objective manifestations showed a lack of mutual assent because an essential term (disposition of intellectual property) was not agreed upon and they intended to reduce the agreement to a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which was never finalized. The court also agreed that specific performance was not an available remedy due to the incompleteness of the purported contract.

Contract DisputeMerger NegotiationsCorporate MergerDental ProfessionMutual AssentSpecific Performance DenialSummary Judgment AffirmationTennessee Court of AppealsContract FormationLack of Agreement
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American National Property and Casualty Company v. Fredrich 2 Partners, Ltd.

Fredrich 2 Partners, Ltd. (Fredrich) owned commercial buildings insured by American National Property & Casualty Company. During a severe winter storm, a pipe in a vacant, unheated unit froze and ruptured, causing water damage. American National denied the claim based on a frozen plumbing exclusion, arguing Fredrich failed to maintain heat as required by an exception. Fredrich sought declaratory judgment, asserting it maintained heat in the occupied unit, fulfilling its obligation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Fredrich, which American National appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Fredrich had done its best to maintain heat in the building by providing electricity and gas for the occupied unit.

Insurance CoverageProperty DamageFrozen PlumbingSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationPolicy ExclusionDuty to Maintain HeatVacant PropertyTexas LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Shield Corp. v. Lahorgue

This case addresses the enforceability of a contractual indemnity clause under Texas fair notice requirements. American Home Shield (American Home) sought indemnity from Turn-Key Pool & Spa (Turn-Key) following a personal injury suit stemming from a spa heater explosion serviced by Turn-Key. The trial court denied American Home's motion for summary judgment and granted Turn-Key's, ruling the indemnity provision failed both the conspicuousness requirement and the express negligence doctrine. On appeal, American Home contended the provision satisfied fair notice or, alternatively, Turn-Key had actual notice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the indemnity provision was not conspicuous and American Home failed to establish actual knowledge, thus rendering the clause unenforceable.

Contractual IndemnityFair Notice RequirementsConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineActual Knowledge ExceptionSummary JudgmentTexas LawIndemnity ClauseService Agreement DisputeAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freeman v. American Motorists Insurance Co.

Stanley Freeman appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of American Motorists Insurance Company (AMIC). Freeman sued AMIC nine years after a workers' compensation settlement, alleging fraud and misrepresentations to set aside the agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. On appeal, Freeman argued his legal disability ("unsound mind") tolled the four-year statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the medical evidence provided by Freeman, specifically a letter from Dr. Sajadi, was inadmissible as a business record and therefore insufficient to raise a fact issue regarding his "unsound mind" to toll the limitations period.

statute of limitationsfraudmisrepresentationlegal disabilityunsound mindworkers' compensationsummary judgmentbusiness record exceptionmedical expert opinionappellate review
References
10
Case No. 09-01-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2002

American National Insurance Company, and American National Property and Casualty Company v. Frank E. Cannon, II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order. American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) appealed the certification of a class action brought by former agents (Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover). The agents alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code, seeking declaratory judgments regarding non-compete provisions and repayment of advance agreements. The appellate court found that individual issues, such as the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions and reliance on oral representations for advance payments, predominated over common issues. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements for class certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(1)(A) were not satisfied. The class certification order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeNon-compete ClauseAgent AgreementsInsurance AgentsDeclaratory JudgmentStandingRipenessPredominance
References
20
Case No. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

MARIA COLCHADO vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, TRI-STATE STAFFING, CIGA administered by SEDGWICK for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. 3:12-cv-1009
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The defendant, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss class claims brought by the plaintiffs, Phipps et al. This case is a follow-on action to a larger nationwide class action against Wal-Mart (Dukes) that was decertified by the Supreme Court. The central issue is whether the American Pipe tolling doctrine extends to subsequent, narrower class actions (subclasses) after the original broad class was denied certification. The court reviewed prior circuit court decisions and recent Supreme Court precedents, noting inconsistencies and criticisms of rigid interpretations. Despite concerns about fairness and judicial economy, the court felt bound by the Sixth Circuit precedent in Andrews v. Orr, which held that American Pipe tolling does not apply to additional class actions by putative members of the original asserted class. Consequently, the court granted Wal-Mart's motion, dismissing the class claims as time-barred, though individual claims were allowed to proceed.

Class ActionStatute of LimitationsAmerican Pipe TollingRule 23Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawMotion to DismissJudicial PrecedentSubclass Certification
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Freight Forwarding, Inc. v. American Flange

This case involves American Flange ("American") suing International Freight Forwarding ("IFF") for damages due to IFF's failure to deliver steel plugs to American's Mexican buyer, Tri-Sure. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of American, awarding $20,620.00 in damages plus attorney's fees and court costs. IFF appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of standing and its findings regarding bailment, invoice alteration, necessary documentation, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that title to the goods revested in American upon Tri-Sure's refusal of delivery, thereby establishing American's standing. The court also upheld the existence of a bailment between American and IFF and found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings on documentation, functionality of the plugs, and the amount of damages for conversion.

BailmentConversionStandingCommercial LawUniform Commercial CodeContract LawDamagesAppellate ReviewFindings of FactConclusions of Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 3,194 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