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. 01-15-00147-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2015

Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC

This case involves an appeal by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance & Annuity Company (Appellants) against Peachtree Settlement Funding, LLC and Sara Swain (Appellees) regarding a trial court's approval of a structured settlement payment rights transfer. Sara Swain, the payee, sought to transfer partial monthly payments to Peachtree, leading to a "Servicing Arrangement" approved by the trial court. This arrangement allowed Peachtree to receive the full monthly payments, retain its assigned portion, and remit the remainder to Swain, without requiring MetLife to directly divide payments. MetLife challenged this, asserting the arrangement improperly modified contracts, contravened the Texas Transfer Statute, and imposed an involuntary business relationship. The Appellee's brief argues for the affirmation of the trial court's decision, emphasizing the legality of the servicing arrangement under Texas's principles of contract assignability and principal-agency law, and affirming the transfer as being in Swain's best interest.

Structured SettlementPayment Rights TransferServicing ArrangementContract AssignabilityPrincipal-Agency LawBest Interest DeterminationAppellate ReviewTexas Transfer StatuteLegal PrecedentAnnuity Issuer Obligations
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Allied Design & Construction, LLC

Petitioners, Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds, initiated an action to confirm an arbitration award against Allied Design & Construction, LLC. Allied, bound by a collective bargaining agreement, failed to undergo a payroll audit, leading the Funds to estimate a substantial deficiency in contributions. An arbitrator subsequently awarded the Funds $239,901.47, covering the estimated deficiency, interest, liquidated damages, and various fees. The Funds then sought to have this award confirmed by the District Court and requested additional attorneys' fees and costs incurred during the confirmation process. The District Court granted the petitioners' motions, confirming the arbitration award and ordering Allied to pay an additional $737.50 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Arbitration ConfirmationCollective BargainingDelinquent ContributionsAttorney Fees AwardCourt CostsLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActSummary Judgment StandardLodestar CalculationUnion Welfare Funds
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds v. Employer-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds

A dispute arose between the Employer-Appointed Trustees and Union-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds concerning delinquent employer contributions. An arbitrator issued an award, which the Employer-Appointed Trustees sought to confirm and the Union-Appointed Trustees cross-moved to vacate. Judge Walker of the District Court reviewed the arbitration award, noting the arbitrator based his findings on prior judicial decisions rather than independently interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The Court determined that the arbitrator failed to apply the contract as bargained for by the parties, thus exceeding his authority. Consequently, the Court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the dispute for proceedings consistent with its order.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust FundsDelinquent ContributionsRes JudicataManifest Disregard of LawScope of Judicial ReviewLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roca v. Westbury Transport Inc.

This case involves a dispute between the Teamsters Local 814 Pension, Welfare, and Annuity Trust Funds and Westbury Transport, Inc. concerning Westbury's obligation to contribute for an employee, James Dawson. The core issue centers on interpreting the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) regarding 'seniority' and 'seasonal employees,' which dictates the contribution requirements. Both parties moved for summary judgment, presenting conflicting interpretations of the CBA's provisions. The court denied both motions, ruling that a de novo standard of review applies to employer contribution obligations under a CBA, rather than the arbitrary and capricious standard. The court found that the relevant clauses of the CBA were ambiguous, thereby creating genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment and require a trial.

Collective Bargaining AgreementPension FundWelfare FundAnnuity FundTrust AgreementsSummary Judgment MotionContract InterpretationStandard of ReviewDe Novo ReviewArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
14
Case No. 10-07-00347-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2009

In Re Aag

This case addresses whether monthly payments received from a structured settlement annuity should be included in the calculation of "net resources" for child support purposes under Texas Family Code Chapter 154. The trial court excluded these payments, making a distinction between an annuity and a settlement annuity. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco, found this exclusion erroneous, clarifying that while a return of principal is excluded from net resources, any interest earned on the annuity payments must be considered income. The case was reversed and remanded to the trial court to determine the specific portions of the annuity payments that constitute a return of principal versus interest.

Child SupportStructured Settlement AnnuityNet ResourcesStatutory ConstructionAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family CodeIncome CalculationPrincipal ReturnInterest IncomeAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2017

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Hugler

This case involves a challenge by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Indexed Annuity Leadership Council, and the American Council of Life Insurers against three rules published by the Department of Labor. These rules redefine 'fiduciary' under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, amend Prohibited Transaction Exemption 84-24, and establish the Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE). Plaintiffs argued that the DOL exceeded its statutory authority, impermissibly created a private right of action, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment, and the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and granted the Defendants' motion, finding the DOL's rules to be a permissible and reasonable exercise of its authority.

ERISAFiduciary DutyInvestment AdviceAnnuitiesDepartment of LaborSummary JudgmentRegulatory LawAdministrative LawProhibited TransactionsFinancial Regulations
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mason Tenders, District Council Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Annuity Fund & Training Program Fund v. Faulkner

Plaintiffs, comprised of Trustees of Mason Tenders District Council Welfare, Pension, Annuity, and Training Program Funds, and the Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York, initiated legal action against Thomas Faulkner d/b/a American Demolition and Thomas Faulkner individually. The suit, filed under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, alleged the defendants failed to allow an audit of their records and did not make required contributions to the plaintiff funds as stipulated by a collective bargaining agreement. Following a default judgment, Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox issued a Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs objected to portions of this report, specifically regarding Faulkner's personal liability and the awarded attorneys' fees. Upon de novo review, District Judge Holwell modified the Report, determining that Faulkner was personally liable for the business's debts and awarding the full amount of attorneys' fees requested by the plaintiffs, totaling $6,588.75.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsPension FundsWelfare FundsCollective BargainingAudit DisputesDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilitySole Proprietorship
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 Insurance Annuity & Apprenticeship Training Funds v. Vic Construction Corp.

The case involves the Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 Insurance, Annuity and Apprenticeship Training Funds and the Executive Board of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 137 (plaintiffs) suing Vic Construction Corporation and Charles Nalbone (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged that Vic Construction failed to make payments to the Funds in violation of a collective bargaining agreement and ERISA, and that Charles Nalbone operated Vic Construction as his alter ego. The core dispute revolves around an oral settlement agreement made on January 6, 1993, where Nalbone stipulated to an indebtedness of $26,935.26 and personally guaranteed payment. Defendants later refused to sign a written agreement, citing a subsequent Second Circuit decision in Sasso v. Cervoni which reversed a prior ruling regarding individual liability for corporate ERISA obligations. The court ruled that federal common law should govern the validity of the oral settlement agreement in ERISA disputes, rather than New York's Rule 2104 requiring a writing. Applying factors for determining intent to be bound, the court found that the parties intended to be bound by the oral agreement. The defendants' request to rescind the agreement due to a subsequent change in legal interpretation was denied, as a 'poor prediction of events' or changes in judicial interpretation of statutes do not constitute a mistake warranting rescission. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the agreement was granted.

ERISAOral Settlement AgreementContract EnforcementFederal Common LawNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesAlter EgoCorporate LiabilityMistake of LawJudicial InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Gesualdi v. Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees and Fiduciaries of various Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training, and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds, initiated an action against Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc. to recover unpaid liabilities and contributions. This action arose from two audits that identified delinquent contributions and the defendant's complete withdrawal from the Funds. Following Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.'s default, the Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke recommended granting the motion and awarding specific damages. District Judge Spatt subsequently adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granting the default judgment and ordering damages totaling $156,898.74, along with daily interest, liquidated damages, audit fees, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Default JudgmentERISAUnpaid ContributionsWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementPrejudgment InterestLiquidated Damages
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 71 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