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

Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.

Maxim Crane Works, LP sued Zurich American Insurance Company for breach of contract and declaratory judgment regarding insurance coverage for defense costs and a $3.5 million judgment Maxim incurred in a prior lawsuit. Maxim sought coverage as an additional insured under a policy Zurich issued to Berkel & Company Contractors, a subcontractor. The court addressed Maxim's standing to sue Zurich, interpreting the deductible endorsement in Maxim's separate policy with Zurich, and concluded Maxim had standing. However, the core of the dispute involved the application of the Texas Anti-Indemnity Statute. The court determined that the statute voided Maxim's additional-insured coverage under the Berkel policy for claims arising from Maxim's own negligence, rejecting Maxim's arguments regarding the 'Employee Exception' and 'Workers' Compensation Exclusion'. Consequently, the court granted Zurich's motion for summary judgment and denied Maxim's.

Insurance CoverageBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTexas Anti-Indemnity StatuteWorkers' Compensation ActAdditional InsuredConstruction ContractDeductible EndorsementStatutory Interpretation
References
35
Case No. 04-14-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Burton Kahn v. Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc.

Burton Kahn, former president of Helvetia Asset Recovery, Inc., was terminated for misconduct in August 2013. In retaliation, Kahn allegedly transferred over $340,000 from Helvetia's accounts, recorded fraudulent warranty deeds conveying Helvetia's real estate to his new corporation, Paradiv Corporation, and falsely claimed to be Helvetia's sole shareholder. Helvetia sued Kahn for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, money had and received, and slander of title. A jury found in favor of Helvetia, awarding substantial actual and exemplary damages. Kahn subsequently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, during which his non-exempt assets, including his appellate rights in this case, were sold to Helvetia by the bankruptcy trustee. This brief, filed by Helvetia, argues that Kahn lacks standing to pursue this appeal due to the sale of his appellate rights, effectively rendering the appeal moot, and that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent DeedsAsset MisappropriationAppellate Rights SaleBankruptcy EstateCollateral EstoppelTexas LawCivil LitigationCorporate MalfeasanceInjunctive Relief
References
112
Case No. No. 21-0727
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2022

Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich American Insurance Company

This case addresses a certified question from the Fifth Circuit regarding the interpretation of the "employee exception" to the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act (TAIA). Maxim Crane Works, L.P., an indemnitee, sought additional-insured coverage from Zurich American Insurance Company, the indemnitor's insurer, for a personal injury claim. The injured worker, a Skanska employee, was deemed a "statutory co-employee" of subcontractor Berkel (the indemnitor) for purposes of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). The Supreme Court of Texas held that the TWCA's expanded definition of "employee" for workers' compensation purposes does not apply to the TAIA's employee exception. Consequently, the additional-insured coverage for claims arising from Maxim's own negligence was found to be void and unenforceable under the TAIA, as the injured worker was not considered an "employee" of the indemnitor in the common, ordinary sense.

Texas Anti-Indemnity Act (TAIA)Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA)Employee ExceptionAdditional Insured CoverageConstruction ContractsIndemnificationCo-employeeStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. 01-01-00618-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2002

Pala, Suresh v. Michael Maxim

This landlord-tenant dispute involves Suresh Pala (landlord) and Michael Maxim (tenant) regarding the early termination of a residential lease. Pala appealed a judgment where both parties received no damages but were each ordered to pay $4,000 in attorney's fees. The landlord challenged the trial court's findings that he materially breached the lease by failing to replace countertops, that this was not a condition precedent, and that the tenant did not act in bad faith by applying her security deposit to rent. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed these issues, including the awards of attorney's fees. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeLease AgreementBreach of ContractEarly Lease TerminationSecurity DepositAttorney's FeesMaterial BreachBad FaithAppellate ReviewTexas Property Code
References
20
Case No. 09-19-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2

Brian W. Justice appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, regarding a breach of contract and judicial foreclosure claim. Justice had defaulted on a promissory note, leading Wells Fargo to seek foreclosure on his property. Following a summary judgment for Wells Fargo, Justice, through an attorney, moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing he lacked notice due to being out of state. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Justice failed to prove his failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference and that Wells Fargo had adequately demonstrated its status as the note holder. Additionally, the court ruled that Justice waived his objection to attorney's fees by not raising it at the trial level.

Summary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosurePromissory Note DefaultHome EquityDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceHolder of Note
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chisolm v. Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc.

Plaintiff O. Beirne Chisolm filed a federal lawsuit against Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc. and Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This federal action followed a similar state court lawsuit where Chisolm claimed violations of state labor and executive laws, alongside breach of contract. Defendants moved to stay the federal action and compel arbitration, having successfully done so in the parallel state court case. The federal court agreed with the state court's reasoning, granting the motion to compel arbitration, and found that Chisolm's U-4 Form mandated arbitration under NYSE Rules and NASD Code, as his claims arose from his employment. Additionally, the court denied the defendants' requests for Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel, determining that Chisolm's arguments, although ultimately unsuccessful, were not groundless.

Age DiscriminationArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActU-4 FormNYSE RulesNASD ArbitrationEmployment LawSanctionsRule 11Section 1927
References
29
Case No. 10-15-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2015

Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC, and Michael C. Evans v. Jonathan Sistrunk

This document is a Docketing Statement (Civil) filed in the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, on August 12, 2015. It pertains to an appeal initiated by Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC and Michael C. Evans against Jonathan Sistrunk. The statement outlines details of a default judgment signed on May 8, 2015, which awarded $14,000.00 in actual damages, $40,000.00 in punitive damages, and $19,000.00 in attorney's fees. The appellants intend to challenge the judgment on grounds including failure to serve process, and the record's support for actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees, as well as post-judgment interest. The document also includes information regarding legal representation, the trial court (170th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas), and a recommendation for mediation.

Default JudgmentAppealService of ProcessDamagesAttorney's FeesPost-Judgment InterestTexas LawCivil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coffey v. Singer Asset Finance Co., LLC

Appellants Rebecca Coffey, Angela Douglas, Donna Kisor, and Elizabeth Wallace appealed summary judgments dismissing their claims against Singer Asset Finance Company, Settlement Capital Corporation, and Merrick Bank Corporation. Appellants had previously settled personal injury lawsuits, receiving structured payments, and later took loans from appellees, using their future settlement payments as collateral. They sought to void these security interests, arguing they were prohibited by the insurance code, structured settlement documents, and public policy, contending the pledges constituted unlawful assignments or commutations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the loan transactions created security interests, not assignments or commutations, and were thus permitted under the insurance code. Furthermore, the court found that the appellants had either waived or were estopped from asserting anti-assignment provisions in their original settlement agreements, and that these transactions did not violate public policy.

Structured SettlementsSecurity InterestsAnti-Assignment ClausesWaiverEstoppelPublic PolicyAnnuity ContractsInsurance CodeTexas LawLoan Agreements
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

Nikko Asset Management Co. v. UBS AG, UBS Warburg (Japan), Ltd.

Plaintiffs, Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd., MMF, and HMMF (collectively 'Nikko'), sued defendants, UBS AG and its subsidiaries ('UBS'), alleging violations of federal securities laws and tort claims. Nikko accused UBS of fraudulently selling credit-linked notes (CLNs) in Japan without disclosing critical information about Enron Corporation's financial instability, knowledge UBS allegedly gained through its U.S. dealings with Enron. The core issue was whether U.S. federal securities laws applied to these predominantly foreign transactions. The court granted UBS's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the alleged U.S. conduct was merely preparatory and did not directly cause the plaintiffs' losses from the Japanese transactions, thus failing both the 'effects test' and the 'conduct test'.

Securities FraudCredit-Linked NotesSubject Matter JurisdictionForeign TransactionsEnron ScandalConduct TestEffects TestMotion to DismissInvestment BankingInternational Law
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 374 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