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

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. v. Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc.

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. The case originated from an injury sustained by a Superior employee, Daryll Faulk, while working under a Master Service Agreement between Superior and Mitchell Energy Corporation (now Devon Energy Operating, L.P.). Faulk sued Energy and others, leading to a settlement, after which Energy and Mitchell sought indemnity from Superior based on the contract. Superior argued that Energy's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Labor Code and the contract was unenforceable under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that under Texas Labor Code section 417.004, third-party beneficiaries like Energy are not permissible indemnitees because the agreement was not directly with the 'third party'.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationContractual LiabilityTexas Labor CodeOilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate ReviewReverse and Remand
References
12
Case No. 05-0202
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2007

Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. v. Superior Snubbing Services, Inc.

Daryll Faulk, an employee of Superior Snubbing Services, Inc., was injured and subsequently sued Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc., among others. Energy later settled with Faulk and sought indemnity from Superior, based on an indemnity provision in Superior's contract with Mitchell Energy Corporation. The dissenting opinion addresses whether Texas Labor Code section 417.004 allows Energy to claim indemnity from Superior when no direct written indemnity agreement existed between them. Justice Johnson, in dissent, argues for a literal interpretation of the statute, stating that it requires a direct contractual agreement between the employer and the third party for indemnity liability. The dissent asserts that this interpretation aligns with legislative intent, particularly the 1989 workers' compensation reforms aimed at reducing employer costs and preserving employer immunity from common-law claims. It further contends that the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (TOAIA) does not negate this workers' compensation provision. The dissenting opinion concludes by stating it would affirm the court of appeals' judgment, thereby denying Energy's indemnity claim against Superior.

Workers' CompensationIndemnity AgreementsStatutory InterpretationThird-Party LiabilityTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActEmployer ImmunityLegislative IntentContract LawDissenting OpinionSupreme Court of Texas
References
17
Case No. 01-04-01088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd. Universal Computer Services, Inc. And Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc. ADP, Inc., Business Solutions, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., and SMC Luxury Cars, Inc.

This trade secrets case involves Appellants Universal Computer Systems, Inc. (UCS) and Appellees Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc., ADP, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., SMC Luxury Cars, Inc., and Business Solutions, Inc. (collectively DSI). The parties had a dispute regarding trade secret misappropriation and a breach of a license agreement, which they agreed to arbitrate. The trial court confirmed the arbitrators' decision, which UCS appealed, alleging improper discovery orders and 'gross mistakes' by the arbitrators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's confirmation, finding that any error in the trial court's discovery order was ameliorated by the arbitrators' full consideration of evidence, and that UCS failed to demonstrate gross mistake in the arbitration decision.

Trade secretsArbitrationDiscovery sanctionsArbitration awardCopyright preemptionSoftware licensingConfidentiality agreementBreach of contractGross mistakeTexas General Arbitration Act
References
21
Case No. 08-11-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2012

Business Staffing, Inc., Transglobal Indemnity Limited, Inc., Harry Sewill, Richard Gable Chapman, Bart Bogus, BSI Insurance Services, Inc., Transglobal Mortgage, Inc., and LHR Enterprises, Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil Service D/B/A Jackson Brothers Hot Oil Service and Cody Jackson

This case involves an appeal from a final judgment against Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) and related entities (Appellants) in favor of Jackson Hot Oil Service and individuals (Appellees). Appellees sued for breach of contract, DTPA violations, breach of good faith, negligence, and fraud, stemming from Appellants' alleged failure to provide workers' compensation insurance. The jury found Appellants engaged in unconscionable and deceptive acts and committed fraud, particularly against Cody Jackson, who suffered severe burns in an on-the-job accident. The appellate court affirmed most of the jury's findings, including those on statute of limitations, DTPA violations, and fraud, but reformed the judgment to adjust the calculation of damages under the DTPA and reflect a remittitur for Jackson Brothers.

Workers' Compensation FraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance MisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil LawStatute of Limitations DefenseExemplary DamagesActual Damages
References
53
Case No. 12-09-00390-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2010

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC v. Image Solutions, Inc.

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC (Trussell) appealed the denial of their motion for sanctions against Image Solutions, Inc. (Image). The underlying dispute originated from a worker's injury, where Image sought workers' compensation coverage through a policy procured by Trussell, which was subsequently denied due to the insurer's insolvency. Image then filed third-party claims against Trussell for negligence and breach of contract, leading Trussell to counterclaim for sanctions. Despite both parties acknowledging the necessity of an evidentiary hearing for the sanctions motion, none was conducted. The appellate court determined that Trussell waived its right to sanctions by failing to secure an evidentiary hearing and by participating in a non-evidentiary one. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the sanctions motion was affirmed.

SanctionsSummary JudgmentEvidentiary HearingWaiverTexas Civil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeWorkers' CompensationInsurance LitigationAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
19
Case No. 13-22-00389-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2023

In Re Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. the State of Texas

The relators, Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., and Xcel Energy Services, Inc., petitioned for a writ of mandamus, challenging a trial court's second issuance of "death penalty sanctions" against them. The sanctions stemmed from alleged discovery abuses in a personal injury lawsuit filed by Eduardo Munoz Jr. and his family (real parties) following an electrical arc incident. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court's second sanction order contained the same fundamental errors as the first, failing to comply with precedent regarding the severity of sanctions, resting on insufficient evidentiary record, and not demonstrating the inadequacy of lesser sanctions. Specifically, the order improperly precluded the application of proportionate responsibility rules, which constitutes an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its sanction order and proceed with further litigation.

MandamusDeath Penalty SanctionsDiscovery AbuseProportionate ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsTrial Court ErrorCivil ProcedureWrit of MandamusEvidentiary HearingElectrical Arc Incident
References
63
Case No. 04-22-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Cross-Appellee) v. ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Cross-Appellant)

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Champion) appealed a final judgment in favor of ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Pro Parties) after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order awarding additional post-verdict attorneys' fees to the Pro Parties, finding the re-opening of evidence impermissible. However, the court affirmed the judgment for the Pro Parties on their quantum meruit claim, including attorneys' fees (excluding the reversed post-verdict award). Champion's claims for DTPA violations and breach of implied warranty were denied due to insufficient evidence. The court upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding frozen meat products and text messages.

Quantum MeruitAttorneys' FeesDirected VerdictBreach of ContractImplied WarrantyDTPAAppellate ReviewJury VerdictPost-Verdict FeesFood Distribution
References
48
Case No. 14-07-00953-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2009

Lowe's Home Centers Inc & Natasha Tanner v. GSW Marketing, Inc. F/K/A Salesmaker, Inc. D/B/A CSA Services Southwest and Snow Mountain Construction, Inc

Natasha Tanner, an employee of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., was injured when a toilet tank fell from an elevated display and struck her head. She, along with Lowe's which intervened to assert subrogation rights, sued multiple entities including Snow Mountain Construction, Inc. (who built the display) and GSW Marketing, Inc. f/k/a Salesmakers, Inc. d/b/a CSA Services Southwest (who maintained the display) for negligent activity and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Snow Mountain and Salesmakers. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Tanner provided no evidence that either company had a duty to discover the toilet was incorrectly assembled or that they were engaged in ongoing negligent activities at the time of her injury. The court determined that the defendants' contractual obligations did not extend to inspecting the internal assembly of the toilets.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationDuty to InspectIndependent ContractorDisplay AssemblyProduct SafetyCausationTexas Appellate Law
References
27
Case No. NO. 01-11-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2013

Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. v. Patterson Services, Inc. and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.

Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. appealed a trial court's judgment favoring Patterson Services, Inc. and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. in a negligence and breach of contract dispute stemming from a sour natural gas well incident. Fairways challenged the sufficiency of Patterson's pleadings and expert testimony, damage awards, and asserted Patterson breached an express warranty and Cudd was negligent. Cudd filed a cross-issue regarding its equipment damages. The appellate court modified the judgment to reinstate Cudd's equipment damages, affirmed the judgment for Cudd on breach of contract, reversed Patterson's negligence claim, and reversed and remanded Patterson's breach of contract claim for a new trial.

Sour gas wellNegligenceBreach of contractExpress warrantySulfide-stress crackingNitrogen blanketT95 pipingEquipment rentalDamagesExpert testimony
References
11
Case No. 3-91-200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1992

McCelvey Jones v. Barry Couch, Anco Insurance Services of Texas, Inc., Anco Insurance Services of Bryan/College Station, Inc., Anco Insurance Services of Houston, Inc. & Anco Insurance Managers, Inc.

McCelvey Jones sued Barry Couch and Anco Insurance Services of Texas, et al., for tortious interference with a contract and a business relationship related to Jones's role as agent of record for King's Daughters Hospital and underwriter Myron F. Steves and Company. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellees. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Couch's alleged tortious interference with a business relationship. Specifically, there was conflicting evidence about Couch's role and influence as a Board of Trustees member and chairman of an insurance committee, and whether his actions constituted 'malice' in the legal sense, defined as wrongful conduct without justification. The court highlighted a fact question regarding whether Couch violated the Hospital's by-laws by acting in a matter where he had a financial interest. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Tortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentBusiness RelationshipContract InterferenceMaliceAgencyInsuranceTexas Court of AppealsFactual DisputeRemand
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 20,022 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