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. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. 05-14-01223-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2014

Michael Morford D/B/A Nemaha Water Services v. Esposito Securities, LLC

This case involves an appeal from the 44th District Court of Dallas County, Texas, concerning an arbitration dispute. Appellee-Plaintiff Esposito Securities, LLC, initiated the original action to enforce a pre-dispute arbitration agreement with Appellants-Defendants (Nemaha Water Services entities). The core issue is whether Appellants-Defendants, who balked on a contractual payment obligation related to a transaction, qualify as 'customers' under FINRA Rule 12200, thereby mandating arbitration before FINRA instead of the contractually specified American Arbitration Association (AAA). The trial court granted Appellee-Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration before the AAA and denied Appellants-Defendants' motion to compel arbitration before FINRA and their subsequent motion to reconsider. This brief argues to affirm the trial court's judgment, contending that Appellants are not 'customers' as defined by FINRA's rules, and that the pre-dispute arbitration agreement to use AAA supersedes any FINRA arbitration claims.

Arbitration AgreementFINRA Rule 12200Customer StatusFinancial ServicesAppealContract DisputeForum Selection ClauseTexas LawFederal Arbitration ActAmerican Arbitration Association
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1992

Berly v. D & L Security Services & Investigations, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment regarding the wrongful death of Anecletas Berly, a Kroger employee, who was killed by a shoplifter during an apprehension attempt by a security guard, Elbert Phillips, employed by D & L Security Services and Investigations, Inc. The appellants, including Berly's family and Transportation Insurance Company (intervening to protect subrogation interest), sued D & L and Phillips for negligence, alleging improper security and apprehension procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding no duty and no proximate cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability, proximate cause, and legal privilege. The court found that evidence of prior criminal activity at the store raised a fact issue on duty and that Phillips's alleged violations of security procedures could be a cause-in-fact of Berly's death.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival StatutesSummary Judgment AppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseSecurity Guard LiabilityShoplifting IncidentThird-Party Criminal ActEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. M1998-00023-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2001

Robert Cunningham, Jr.,e t al v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the estate of employee Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., who died of heart failure while on duty as a security guard. The claim for death benefits against the employer, Shelton Security Service, Inc., was initially dismissed by the trial court, which found the emotional stress experienced was not extraordinary for a security guard. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this dismissal, deeming there was sufficient evidence of causation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review and agreed with the Panel, concluding that the threat to kill the employee during a confrontation constituted a mental or emotional stimulus of an unusual and abnormal nature, making his death compensable. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackEmotional StressSecurity GuardCausationUnusual Employment StressDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemandTrial Court Error
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves the appeal by the estate of Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., from a chancery court judgment dismissing a claim for death benefits against Shelton Security Service, Inc. The employee, a security guard, died of heart failure while on duty after a verbal confrontation with suspected shoplifters who threatened to kill him. The trial court initially dismissed the claim, ruling that the emotional stress was not extraordinary or unusual for his occupation. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this decision. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Panel's decision, concluding that the threat of death constituted an unusual and abnormal emotional stimulus, thus reversing the trial court's dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeart FailureEmotional StressArising Out of EmploymentUnusual StressSecurity GuardCausationReversed and RemandedSudden Cardiac Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. FJC Security Services, Inc.

Latía M. Jones, a pro se plaintiff, sued FJC Security Services, Inc. alleging racial and gender discrimination, failure to provide a full-time position, failure to promote, wrongful termination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII. FJC moved for summary judgment, presenting extensive evidence that its employment decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including site closure, Jones's failure to bid on positions, performance issues leading to client complaints, and her ultimate termination for job abandonment and refusal to cooperate. Jones failed to file a response. The court found that FJC met its burden and Jones did not raise a genuine issue of material fact, thus granting FJC's motion for summary judgment.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFifth CircuitMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
93
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Jermaine Washington, a Black employee, filed a pro se employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Washington alleged racial discrimination based on increased payroll responsibilities, denied transfers to higher-paying sites, and a manager's "threatening" email. He also claimed retaliation after being allegedly threatened with termination for not signing employment documents and experiencing a temporary loss of compensation during a transfer. The court, presided over by Hon. Michael A. Telesca, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Washington failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination and that the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute materially adverse employment actions or were not causally linked to protected activity. Consequently, Washington's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionFailure to PromoteEmployment At-WillPayroll ResponsibilitiesEmployer-Employee DisputeFederal Court
References
35
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1999

Wayburn v. Madison Land Ltd.

Plaintiffs Robert Wayburn and E.S. were victims of a violent crime (robbery, assault, and rape) in an office building. They, along with Doris McGarty, sued multiple defendants, including the building's managing agent, Rose Associates, and the security provider, Primary Security Services, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the decision was modified: summary judgment was denied for Rose Associates, and the complaint against them was reinstated. Rose's cross-claims against Primary Security Services were converted to third-party claims. The dismissal of direct claims against Primary Security Services and Rosenthal & Herman, P. C. was affirmed.

NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealForeseeability of CrimeLandlord LiabilityManaging Agent NegligenceSecurity BreachPremises SecurityDuty of CareReinstatement of ClaimsThird-Party Claims
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 10,656 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