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. 01-15-01096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2016

Texas City Patrol, LLC v. El Dorado Insurance Agency, Inc.

Texas City Patrol, LLC appealed the trial court's dismissal of its claims against El Dorado Insurance Agency, Inc. The case originated when Texas City Patrol, a security company, obtained a commercial automobile insurance policy through El Dorado, and a company employee was later injured in an accident. The insurer, Progressive, initially denied an uninsured motorist claim, leading Texas City Patrol to allege misrepresentation by El Dorado regarding coverage. Texas City Patrol subsequently sued El Dorado, alleging violations of the Texas Insurance Code, DTPA, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted El Dorado's motion to dismiss and awarded attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that El Dorado, as an insurance agent and not the insurer, was not liable under the various statutes and common law duties invoked by Texas City Patrol.

Insurance LawDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingPrompt Payment of Claims ActMotion to DismissTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 91aInsurance Agent LiabilityUninsured Motorist CoverageAttorney's Fees
References
7
Case No. M1999-00985-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Borders v. Crow

This case concerns an employment dispute stemming from an oral contract between insurance brokers Harry W. Borders (employee) and Ronnie J. B. Crow (employer) over commissions for securing an insurance program for Teamsters Local 327. Borders sued Crow after being terminated, alleging unpaid commissions. Although a jury found Borders was discharged for cause, they awarded him both pre- and post-termination compensation. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that an employee terminated for cause under an at-will contract is not entitled to post-discharge compensation. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the portion of the judgment awarding post-discharge damages and remanded the case for entry of a judgment solely for the $6,000.00 in pre-termination compensation.

oral contractemployment at willtermination for causepost-discharge compensationcommissions disputeinsurance brokerjury verdictremittiturcontract lawTennessee law
References
5
Case No. 08-06-00308-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2007

in Re: Border Steel, Inc.

Border Steel, Inc., a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Patrick M. Garcia after the trial court denied its motion to compel arbitration with employee Mario Juarez. Juarez, injured on the job, had signed an Employee Injury Benefit Plan containing an arbitration agreement, which he later contested, citing fraud, unconscionability, and an illusory agreement. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas examined the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and its preemption of the Texas Labor Code. The court found that the FAA applied due to Border Steel's interstate commerce activities and rejected Juarez's affirmative defenses. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to grant the motion to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Labor Code PreemptionMandamus ReliefWorkers' Compensation Non-SubscriberEmployment DisputeContract EnforceabilityFraud DefenseUnconscionabilityIllusory Promise
References
29
Case No. 08-09-00170-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2011

in Re: Arcelormittal Vinton, Inc. F/K/A Border Steel, Inc.

ArcelorMittal Vinton, Inc., formerly Border Steel, Inc., sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge William E. Moody to vacate an order denying their plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss an age discrimination case filed by Jose Sandovol. Sandovol claimed he was not rehired due to age discrimination after a plant shutdown in June 2004 and reopening in December 2004/January 2005. Border Steel argued Sandovol failed to timely file his administrative claim with the Texas Workforce Commission within 180 days, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals agreed that Sandovol's claim, filed on February 28, 2006, was beyond the July 5, 2005 deadline. Consequently, the court found the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the dismissal of Sandovol's case for lack of jurisdiction.

age discriminationmandamus reliefjurisdictionplea to the jurisdictiontimeliness of claimadministrative remediesTexas Labor Codeabuse of discretionappellate courtemployment law
References
15
Case No. 13-07-149-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2008

English Marine Agency, Inc. v. Border Shipyards, Inc., Jorge Gonzalez, Ruben Barrera, Carl Joe Gayman

English Marine Agency, Inc. appealed a judgment rendered on a jury verdict in favor of Border Shipyards, Inc. and its shareholders. English Marine argued that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's verdict, that appellees were precluded by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and that the trial court failed to give proper credit for a settling defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the breach of contract claim. The court also overruled challenges to damages and proportionate responsibility.

Insurance LawAgent NegligenceBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyUnconscionable ConductIndemnification AgreementsMarine Insurance PolicyShipyard LiabilityPolicy Coverage DisputeTexas Court of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. v. Ernesto Pineda

This appeal concerns a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. against attorney Ernesto Pineda. Border Demolition alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, claiming Pineda failed to defend them in an underlying wrongful discharge suit despite an alleged implied attorney-client relationship. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Pineda on the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims, deeming them impermissible fracturing of the legal malpractice claim. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the implied attorney-client relationship and Pineda's duty of care. The case has been remanded for further proceedings on the legal malpractice claim.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney DutyImplied ContractAttorney-Client RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealProfessional NegligenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractTexas Court of AppealsEl Paso District
References
66
Case No. ADJ9883212
Regular
May 19, 2018

LADONNA PALEGA vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a California Highway Patrol officer diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. The defendant, California Highway Patrol, sought reconsideration of a finding that this condition constituted an industrial injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant argued that the applicant's condition was not considered "cancer" and therefore the statutory presumption of industrial causation did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding based on qualified medical evaluator Dr. Ngo's opinion that adenocarcinoma in situ qualifies as cancer under the statute. The Board found the defendant failed to rebut the presumption by providing evidence that the exposure to carcinogens was not linked to the disabling cancer.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of injurycervical canceradenocarcinoma in situLoop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP)substantial medical evidencepanel qualified medical evaluatordisputable presumptionrebuttal evidencecarcinogen exposure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Terrell

This case addresses whether the State of Texas is liable under the Texas Tort Claims Act for personal injuries caused by a highway patrol officer's negligent operation of a motor vehicle. James M. Terrell and Security National Insurance Company sued the State after Officer White's patrol car collided with Terrell's vehicle during a radar operation in Runnels County. The District Court granted summary judgment for the State, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, holding that the State is subject to liability if the officer's negligence occurred within the scope of employment and outside an emergency. The Court clarified that while policy-making decisions regarding police protection are immune, negligence in executing those policies can lead to liability under the Act.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityGovernmental LiabilityPolice NegligenceMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationEmergency ExemptionPolicy DecisionsDiscretionary FunctionScope of Employment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carcamo-Lopez v. Does 1 through 20

Plaintiff Miriam Aide Carcamo-Lopez sued Border Patrol Agent Ricardo R. Montalvo and the U.S. Government after she was run over by Montalvo's vehicle during an attempted illegal border crossing. The lawsuit asserted Bivens claims against Montalvo for Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, and Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims against the government for assault, battery, and negligence. The court granted summary judgment for Montalvo on the Bivens claims, finding no evidence of intentional action for Fourth Amendment purposes and no violation of clearly established Fifth Amendment rights for reckless conduct. The court also granted the government partial summary judgment on assault and battery claims related to the incident, again citing lack of intentional or reckless conduct. However, the court denied the government's summary judgment requests regarding the discretionary function exception, the Texas Transportation Code's emergency vehicle liability limits, and the unlawful acts rule, allowing the negligence claim to proceed on those specific points.

Bivens actionFederal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)Qualified immunitySummary judgmentFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentExcessive forceBorder PatrolImmigrationRecklessness
References
91
Case No. ADJ7215196 (MF) ADJ7214862 ADJ7267507
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

KARA ELLIS vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the California Highway Patrol's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding of 100% permanent total disability for the applicant, Kara Ellis, due to injuries sustained as a sworn officer. The employer failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate apportionment of prior disability awards, as required by law, and did not prove overlap of injuries. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to an unapportioned award of total permanent disability and future medical treatment.

Permanent Total DisabilityApportionmentOverlapLabor MarketEarning CapacitySworn OfficerIndustrial InjuriesUnapportioned AwardPrior AwardBody Parts
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 118 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