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. 19-0791, 19-0792
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

in Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Todd Joseph Dauper

This case from the Supreme Court of Texas consolidates two petitions for writ of mandamus concerning underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance claims. Relators State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Terecina Shahan, and Todd Joseph Dauper sought to overturn trial court denials of their motions for bifurcated trials. The underlying suits, brought by real parties in interest Al Dodds and Alexander Nicastro, alleged only extracontractual violations of the Texas Insurance Code, seeking UIM benefits as damages, but did not include breach-of-contract claims. State Farm argued that an insured must first establish legal entitlement to policy benefits by proving the underinsured motorist's liability and damages in an initial "car crash" trial, even if only statutory claims are pleaded. The Court agreed, holding that such a showing is a prerequisite for recovering on Insurance Code claims when damages are predicated on policy benefits. It found that denying bifurcation was an abuse of discretion, citing the need to preserve judicial resources and prevent prejudice from the admission of settlement offers. The Court conditionally granted the petitions, directing the trial courts to bifurcate the trials.

Underinsured Motorist InsuranceInsurance Code ClaimsBifurcation of TrialsWrit of MandamusExtracontractual ClaimsPolicy BenefitsTexas Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionTrial AbatementSettlement Offers
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Perry

This case involves the interpretation of the 1990 amendment to 10 U.S.C. § 1095 concerning a first-party automobile insurer's obligation to reimburse the United States for medical care provided to military-related insureds injured in auto accidents. The core issue is whether United Services Automobile Association (USAA), providing 'Medpay coverage,' is a 'third-party payer' under the amended statute. USAA argued its Medpay coverage is not 'automobile liability insurance' or 'no fault insurance' as defined by the statute. The United States contended otherwise and sought deference to Department of Defense regulations. The Court granted USAA's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Medpay coverage does not fall within the statutory definitions, and declined to defer to the agency's conflicting interpretations.

10 U.S.C. § 1095Automobile InsuranceNo-Fault InsuranceAutomobile Liability InsuranceMedpay CoverageThird-Party PayerStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentSummary JudgmentFederal Medical Care Recovery Act
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Finchum v. Colaiacomo

The Workers’ Compensation Board issued an amended decision ruling against further development of the record on the employer’s liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56, and later denied the employer's request for reconsideration. The claimant was involved in a serious automobile accident while driving for an uninsured employer, leading to complex proceedings where the employer sought to assign liability to a general contractor, Cleanway Industries, Inc., and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. The appellate court found that the Board abused its discretion by sua sponte rescinding its prior directive to further develop the record, particularly without a compelling reason or apparent regulatory authorization. The court noted that the issue of liability had been pending for years and there were potential reasonable excuses for the employer's absence at certain hearings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionRecord DevelopmentWaiver DefenseUninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
3
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

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. 03-97-00448-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1999

Jeane Laurence v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

This appeal examines the validity of an automobile insurance policy provision. The provision allows for the reduction of uninsured motorist (UM) benefits by the amount of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits already paid to the insured. Appellant Jeane Laurence argued that this offset provision was invalid and unenforceable under Texas law and public policy, challenging the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The appellate court analyzed relevant Texas Insurance Code statutes and prior case law concerning UM and PIP coverages, particularly regarding the prevention of double recovery. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the offset clause was valid when the insured's actual damages were less than the combined PIP and UM coverages.

Automobile InsuranceUninsured Motorist CoveragePersonal Injury ProtectionPIP OffsetInsurance Policy ValiditySummary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationTexas Insurance Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 1963

International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers v. American Metal Products Co.

The case involved American Metal Products Company (Ampco) suing two labor unions, Local 1198 UAW and International Union UAW, for damages resulting from a violent strike in Obion County, Tennessee. The unions' conduct included harassment, mass picketing, intimidation, and violence, leading to significant disruption of Ampco's business operations. The Circuit Court initially awarded Ampco compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the unions' liability for tortious conduct, emphasizing the state's interest in maintaining public order. However, the appellate court reduced the compensatory damages by limiting the compensable period, resulting in a final judgment of $64,737.59 against the unions, including $50,000 in punitive damages.

Labor RelationsUnion StrikeIndustrial ActionTort LawPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesFederal PreemptionLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)PicketingViolence
References
30
Case No. 13-99-814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lopez, Alicia

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The appellees, Alicia Lopez, Adan Munoz, Jr., Juan Llanes, Diana Moreno, and Albert Alaniz, sued their automobile insurance carriers, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging wrongful failure to pay adequate dividends to policyholders despite significant corporate surpluses, breach of contract, and fraud. Appellants, State Farm and Wendy L. Gramm, contested the class certification on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, absence of a viable cause of action (challenging typicality), and antagonistic interests among class members (challenging adequate representation). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's class certification order, ruling that the trial court had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the class met the typicality and adequate representation requirements.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealInsurance LawDividendsPolicyholdersJurisdictionTypicalityAdequate RepresentationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Law
References
37
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00322 [190 AD3d 876]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2021

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Klein

The plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., initiated a subrogation action to recoup damages paid to its insureds following a vehicle accident. The case involved a third-party action where defendants/third-party plaintiffs Traci B. Klein and Marie A. Michel sought indemnification from Recco Health Corporation et al., arguing Recco was Michel's employer under the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP) and therefore vicariously liable. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted Recco's motion for summary judgment, concluding Michel was not their employee for vicarious liability purposes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that CDPAP regulations do not grant fiscal intermediaries control over caregivers' methods, a key factor in determining an employer-employee relationship for vicarious liability.

SubrogationVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentMedicaid ProgramConsumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP)Fiscal IntermediaryEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate DivisionProperty Damage
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,593 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